Difference between revisions of "Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism"

Latest revision as of 02:11, September 27, 2018

Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (FSM) is another word for "everything." The Flying Spaghetti Monster equals everything. Everthing is The Flying Spaghetti Monster. To deny that "He" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does The Flying Spaghetti Monster (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does The Flying Spaghetti Monster have a plan? Or is Everything (i.e. his noodly appendages) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies (did you know that superclusters of galaxies are shaped exactly like spaghetti threads, coincidence?) Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstein included) believe that time is not absolute and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or The Flying Spaghetti Monster) is sentient. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand.ME

Middle Man

I suppose cut and paste is the sincerest form of flattery. Everwill 09:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

May he touch you with his noodlely appendage! Ramen!

Why Atheism is ridiculous

Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (i.e. God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. Everwill 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT) Everwill 09:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Your argument has one fundamental flaw--you are assuming that God is everything which is something that is absouletly true. Lopku 8:50, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I've complied your argument and run it. It has nothing to do with God. Here's your argument:

pound-define GOD everything int main(){

everything exists by definition of thing;

therefore, GOD exists;

return 1;

}

Here it is after preprocessing:

int main(){

everything exists by definition of thing;

therefore, everything exists;

return 1;

}

Where do you mention the omni-present flying fairy in the sky? User:Cthx

• I've never spoken with, seen or heard any spagetti fly which was not first thrown, that's why I don't go off claiming I know what the Flying Spagett's Monster's will is.

• I believe that in the material world science is the only way to the truth: if the evidence says it's so, I tend to believe it's true.

• I believe human rights, democracy, honesty and equality for all are the highest universal values. I understand that each of these words can be twisted to drive a specific ideology and I do not support some of those political interpretations of these words.

• I believe multi-nationalism is a 50 year old hoax. I believe that "diversity" is a word used as a club to blunt the achievements of the most successful cultures on the planet while saddling them with the responsibility to clean-up messes they didn't create.

• I believe there would be no tax money is to spend on health care for the poor if the USA did not spend at least another $6 billion for each aircraft carrier.

• I believe reason and logic are worth more than blind faith. I believe that people who don't understand the logic of others call it blind faith so that they can denigrate their logic.

• I believe Jesus had much to teach, but he's been misinterpreted by User:Middle Man.

• I believe religion is something between a person and his or her deity. I agree with our founding fathers that religion is an important part of public and private life but the belief in God doesn't not allow for the imposition of religion upon anyone.

• I am an American citizen and know that 96% of the world population wishes they were Americans too. Everwill 10:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Atheism isn't ridiculous god answers prayers in three ways yes no and wait. If you were praying to god to win the lottery you would either win, lose but consider gods answer to be wait. In the win scenario you credit god for the win and if you lose god is telling you to wait he'll get to you. If you pray to a cellphone to win the lottery you will either win or lose but assume that the awnser is wait. What I'm getting at is that if you pray to god or a cellphone you will get the same resoult any win even with god or the cellphone on your side is just a coincdence. P.S: Its not a debate if their is only one point of view.ME

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very forgiving, you may still repent for your blasphemy.

Middle Man

I'm not sure I'll ever understand your obsession with spaghetti, but at some point it stops driving your point and starts making you look really devoid of ideas. Your point is: God is as laughable and dubious an idea as the idea of a flying spaghetti monster. In other words, you can't combat logic with logic, so you'll make Rosie O'Donnell-styled faces and weird-noises to prove your point. Oh, I get it ... Everwill 10:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it's called sarcasm: I'm pointing out that if your "logic" can prove the existence of God, it can also prove the existence of Zeus, Ra, Shiva, Marduk and, yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all I have to do is say that one of them is everything). I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove his existence, there never is with supernatural beings.

Middle Man

Yeah that's real funny. I get it.

It's a simple matter to prove that God exists. The hard part is figuring out what this means. It's also true that there's nothing easier to make fun of than something you don't understand. So it's no wonder you are so delighted with yourself.

When you decide to grow up and talk like an adult, then pick the word that makes you happy: God, Marduk, Luck, Shiva, g (the imaginary catalyst, see Atheism vs. Deism). Only when you have a word to describe everything can you examine what God means or is. Everwill 19:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

^^^ Everwill in both cases you have managed to embody the very (self made) characterization of your opponent in an attempt to do exactly what you are trying to accuse him/her of doing. In case you didn't know, although I am sure you do, FSM is an established critique of theism that this individual did not simply make up here. I have yet to see a theist come close to disputing it as a viable challenge to their own reliance on a flying speghetti monster with a different name. Every single aspect of how FSM theory correlates to "real" religion is dead on. Snarky, ill-constructed shadow boxing around the point being clearly made doesn't make that point go away. Neither do lame attempts to personify your commentary as wizened and somehow graced with more "maturity." You lost the debate as soon as you entered it and offered nothing but ornamental distrations and shameless ineptitude recast as "enlightented" condescension. In fact, if anything you have made the entire point of FSM better than you adversay ever could have. - JBall

So you agree with me that the existence of Ra, Zeus or Marduk is equally plausible as the existence of the Abrahamic God? Middle Man

I agree that it's pointless to argue about which religion is better with someone who does not acknowledge the existence of a deity. Everwill 08:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If one starts out by stating that Atheism is ridiculous, just exactly who is supposed to take up the debate? Of course, believers view atheism as incorrect, just as adults view Santa as fiction. To whom is your discussion directed?--Eastfernstreet 14:55, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Let Me Paint a Picture

Just suppose there was a universe in a multiverse far far away....

... and in that universe, which came from nothing, and had no organisation, no structure, by some remote chance of fate that only happens once in every 10 to the squillion years, that matter self organised into a self-reproducing molecule. To begin with, that structure was crude, basic and lacked any real semblance of we might call life, but it had one single feature, that it was able to self-replicate (albeit somewhat haphazardly) and reproduce. Reproduce it did, and over time there were many copies of this thing. I say 'thing'; I actually mean things, because from this simple rudimentary molecule, came others, better equipped to reproduce, and so began the process of reproduction, change, survival and adaptation.

A squillion years passed and that self-reproducing molecule had became so sophisticated that it was no longer a molecule, but had packaged itself with a coating of material for protection; that material had its own molecules which told it how to reproduce and survive, how to accrete and modify naturally occurring minerals in the surrounding context, and how to use the natural energy of starlight to produce different molecules.

Time passed, and these packages of molecules began to take on a myriad forms; some remained stationary, making complex molecules from the atmosphere and starlight; others roamed about using the stationary packages as raw materials to create their own package coverings. The diversity was amazing. The single molecule had by now invaded every part of the planet; every ecological niche was filled by a different type of package, and everything worked. Many of the moving packages began to use other packages for their material needed to grow and survive; some got rather good at it. Some even began to be able to structure rudimentary plans of how to do it better, and these were passed on to other packages of the same type. These packages became so good at adapting to their environment that they began to shape their environment for themselves; at first, simply finding cosy spots to rest, then hollowing out spaces or using material to construct things.

One day, one of these packages, used the complex set of molecules within its package not to plan a nice cosy spot to rest, or to work out even better ways of accreting more material to itself, but to ask the question 'Why am I here?' That unanswered question inevitably led to other questions, such as 'What is space?' 'What is time?', and 'Why is so much of my life spent looking for nice cosy spots to rest and better ways of accreting material to myself?'.

A squillion years later and the descendants of these packages were still asking themselves the same questions. Long ago they had enlisted the help of most of the universe in their quest to find the answers. They had harnessed the power of the very small: atomic nuclei and quantum fluctuations to power and drive their auxilliary questioning devices; they had reached out on the very large scale to the furthest depths of their universe, and all were connected. The question was still unanswered until one day, the huge, all-encomassing packeage managed to make the final connection which pieced everything in the universe together. Then it all fell into place. All at once the package could see - not only where everything is, but how everything was, and where it will be. The package knew all the answers, and knew that it could change them.

For a time, the package wallowed in smugness and self-satisfaction. It had answered all of the questions that could usefully be asked, and many that were useless. There followed a period of boredom followed by a long peiod of emptiness. Most of all, it was lonely. Desperately and unutterably lonely. How lonely you cannot possibly imagine. Destined to be for the whole of time without any other being for comfort or companionship. It craved attention. For a while it went mad. Then out of that madness came a brilliant idea. As it could change time and space, why not look back over its long multisquillion year history and change things?

The universal package didnt really approve of its humble beginnings so it decided that a tweak here or there wouldn't go amiss. The first package to ask the question 'Why am I here?' didn't really seem right. Wouldn't it be better if the first question recognised the importance of where that primitive package was heading? Why not change that question to 'Who put me here?' or 'What am I destined for?', or more importantly 'Is this everything, or is there something else?'. Best of all, putting the idea 'Who put me here?' meant that primitive packages would come to a realisation (but not understand the significance) of a universal package, and would begin to talk to it.

Its first attempts to do this were crude and clumsy. They missed the mark by miles. Packages attributed 'universal package status' to stars, minerals, and other packages, but not the one universal package itself. Then it hit upon the solution, almost by accident - to put into the mind of one lowly package the idea that this lowly package was the naturally occuring descendant of the one universal package. That idea was so powerful that it reverberated down through the whole of time like an avalanche down a mountain slope. All at once, all the packages wanted to talk to the universal package, and it was happy. It was no longer alone, and it was loved.

Some packages believed in the one universal package; other packages believed that they had arisen from the mud of the planet in a multi squillion year history. Did it matter to the universal package? Not a jot. They were both right - and both wrong. It amused the universal package to watch the antics of these primitve packages arguing with each other in such a pointless manner. This was entertainment, and it was certainly much better than being bored, lonely or going mad.

--CatWatcher 02:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not a religion

Uh, pastafarianism isn't actually a religion, it's a satire of religion, atheists don't actually believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, there use the concept to demonstrate logic flaws in religion.

And the the poster who stated that God is everything and by rejecting God atheists reject everything, atheists reject the concept of religion and a supernatural being who determines the outcome of the universe. They do not reject the universe or things which they believe to be real, and hence do not reject everything. And Einstein did not believe time was an illusion, he believed it was relative to the frame of reference of an observer, just as he believed mass and length were and that the speed of light was the only constant. DegreeOfProof 00:41, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Pastafarianism is about a lot of things. It's origin is in an open letter addressed to the Kansas Board of Education (which at the time was debating whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools) in an attempt to prove that if even one non-scientifically provable theory of creation (and I'm using that term liberally) was to be taught in school, then any comparable theory should have to be taught as well. It also includes elements of Omphalism, i.e. that everything appears to be much older than it is because His Noodly Appendages interfere with our scientific equipment. The argument, like in the case of many parody religions, is founded on Russel's Teapot which holds that the burden of proof is on the believer, and not the skeptic since, according to actual religious tradition (i.e that the burden of proof is on the skeptic), it would be the responsibility of everyone else to prove that the FSM does not exist. DefiantElements 23:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Pastafarianism is sarcastic mockery. A Sophists arrogant attempt to mock other religious beliefs in order to marginalize them. Or as it is here that once again the religious athiests are trying to explain away what they have little if no ability to conceptualize. It is along the lines of a prejudicial parody and satire meant to slander another religion much like in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Note the use of cartoonish characters. Pastafarianism isn't a religion, it's a propaganda attack on theistic religion from a non-theist. An exercise in religious bigotry that appeases a non-theist peer group. Here is what the title really says: non-theistic religion vs. theistic religion. It was meant as an insult to the intelligence of the Kansas Board of Education through over simplification and I'm surprised nobody can even point out that fact.--Roopilots6 11:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

The purpose of Pastafarianism was to protest the Kansas Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in classrooms. The point being is that creationism should not be taught in schools simply because creationism is not scientific. Raymond 18:37, 10 December 2007 (EST)

The point of Pastafarianism is the same as any other attempt to belittle those that don't fit someone's political, religious view. Mockery through parady and childish satire which is also known as propaganda. Facts aren't even bothered with. The science behind the Creation is the same as the faithful evolutionist uses but of course excludes since it doesn't fit the belief system requirements of evolutionary theory. I can accept the fact that there are two views here and be tolerant of that point. What isn't acceptable is to have a different point of view that the faithful adherents of the sacred theory of evolution have that won't allow other scientifically valid theories accepted only because they challenge their own. Proving therefore that it ultimately requires a faith like belief system in order for it to be kept alive. This is the whole point. You've yet to prove your theory (except to the faithful) so you can't exclude other theories.--Roopilots6 13:09, 11 December 2007 (EST)

No, it isn't. Do you even know the history behind Pastafarianism? It was created as a mock religion to protest the Kansas State Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in schools. It is nothing childish. it is a protest against how pressure groups can indtroduce Christian bias into an non-theocratic classroom. I don't know where you are getting your definition of propaganda but it is way out of context. Propagandqa is not childish satire and any legitimate dictionary can quote you on that. There is no science beind creationism; this is the reason that most other civilised countries do not teach it in their public schools. Since the pseudoscience of Christian-perspective creationsim can be regarded as legitimate, why can't all forms of creationism be regarded as legitimate? Do we really have to teach an alternate theory that the Earth was created by Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If we don't, it would be biased only to include the Christian God's theory. That is the reason for the creation of Pastafarianism. It is a protest of the inane bias by fundamentalist pressure groups that want to use religion to invoke power among the gullible by impopsing their pseudoscientific views in the classroom. Coventry 19:53, 30 December 2007 (EST)

So all you're stating here is that God doesn't exist, and we should believe your word on the subject, as well as every like-minded individual? Karajou 20:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)

"Do you even know the history behind Pastafarianism? It was created as a mock religion ...": Isn't that consistent with what Roopilots6 said?

"...the Kansas State Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in schools.": I'm sure they never did that.

"It is nothing childish.": Mocking rather than rational debate is not childish?

"it is a protest against how pressure groups can indtroduce Christian bias into an non-theocratic classroom.": That's evolutionary spin for "it's a protest against allowing any other view than ours into supposedly-neutral classrooms".

"There is no science beind creationism;": So how come almost all the early scientists were creationists? And how come science only arose because of a Christian (creationist) worldview? I'd suggest there's more science behind creationism than behind the atheist origins myth (evolution).

"...is the reason that most other civilised countries do not teach it in their public schools.": No, that's not the reason.

"Do we really have to teach an alternate theory that the Earth was created by Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?": No. Is anybody claiming that we should? No. So why bring up red herrings?

"If we don't, it would be biased only to include the Christian God's theory.": No, it would be balanced between teaching a creator vs. no creator. At the moment, only the no-creator view is allowed a look in. Is that fair?

"It is a protest of the inane bias by fundamentalist pressure groups ...": As opposed to the bias by atheist pressure groups?

"... that want to use religion to invoke power among the gullible ...": Huh? I'm not sure that even makes sense.

"..by impopsing their pseudoscientific views in the classroom": As opposed to the atheists already doing just that?

It all sounds rather one-sided to me. You're right, we're wrong, and that's it!

Philip J. Rayment 09:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Obviously, Rootpilots6 does not know the history behind Pastafarianism because it was created as a mock religion to protest the actual allowing of creationism to be taught in shools. Yes, they did do that.

Contrary to your belief, the creator of Pastafarianism did have a long rational debate at the Kansas State Board of Education. With their descision continue to allow the teaching of Creationism, The creator of Pastafarianism proposed that the theory according to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be taught in schools to as a satire. Satires are certainly not childish.

Now if you would suggest that a neutral classroom should introduce all theories into the clasroom, why would they only introduce the Christian theory. That's Christian spin. None of these other theories are based on scientific method except for Evolution which is why it is inane to introduce a massive amount of theological theories into the classroom that have no scientific merit whatsoever.

Yet, all of these early creationist scientists didn't actually study any science that would have contradicted the Bible. However, this changed with Charles Darwin. He never doubted the Bible as being literal until his studies based on scientific method contradicted the Bible. Nor did science only arise because of a Christian creationist point of view. In fact, the most contributing era to science was the classical antiquity period which was before Christianity arose.

And yes, that is the reason that most other civilised countries teach only evolution in their schools.

Now if we don't have to teach any theories based on Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why should we have to teach theories based on the Christian viewpoint of a deity which doesn't follow scientific method either?

Yes, it would be biased to only include the Christian God's theory. Please explain to me why the other deities are of less significance. At the moment, the naturalist theory is looked at because it is the only one of all of them that is based on scientific method. Now that is definitely fair.

Yet again, the bias from religious pressure groups is the promotion of a theory that is not based on scientific method. Atheist pressure groups are actually promoting Evolution which is based on scientific method.

It does actually make sense that religion has been used to invoke power on the gullible. History shows it.

Now you missed something here... Christians are trying to impose their pseudoscientific views onto the classroom while atheists are trying to impose their scientific views on the classroom.

Your argument is ironically the one that is one-sided: Christian biased sided. However, I will admit that I am biased to science. Wolverhampton 19:11, 4 January 2008 (EST)

When user Coventry returns, this time not as socks Alsace and Wolverhampton, he's going to put his money where his mouth is. He's going to prove an example of evolution by using the scientific method only, and this example is the so-called evolution of the horse. Karajou 19:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

"Yes, they did do that.": Repeating the assertion does not make it so. My memory and quick bit of research says otherwise.

"Contrary to your belief, the creator of Pastafarianism did have a long rational debate at the Kansas State Board of Education.": Okay, so it was rational debate with the board, and mocking in public when his arguments failed to convince. That still doesn't make it any better.

"Now if you would suggest that a neutral classroom should introduce all theories into the clasroom, why would they only introduce the Christian theory.": First, I did not suggest that they should introduce all theories, whatever that may mean. Second, creation is not exclusive to Christianity. Third, I didn't say that only creation should be introduced. Intelligent design should be allowed also. Fourth, creation and ID are the about the only scientific alternatives.

"None of these other theories are based on scientific method except for Evolution...": This is anticreationist rhetoric which doesn't stand scrutiny and which is used to keep the evolutionary monopoly without having to actually address the arguments.

"..it is inane to introduce a massive amount of theological theories into the classroom ...": That is not being proposed. About all that is ever suggested is introducing scientific evidence consistent with creation.

"Yet, all of these early creationist scientists didn't actually study any science that would have contradicted the Bible.": That's only because true science can't contradict the Bible, because the Bible is true. But if you mean that their science had no potential to contradict the Bible, that's absolute rubbish.

"He never doubted the Bible as being literal until his studies based on scientific method contradicted the Bible.": Wrong again. His purpose in writing about evolution was to do away with God.

"Nor did science only arise because of a Christian creationist point of view.": The experts/historians say otherwise.

"And yes, that is the reason that most other civilised countries teach only evolution in their schools.": Simply repeating an assertion is not a valid argument. Failing to provide a valid argument when challenged suggests that you have none.

"...why should we have to teach theories based on the Christian viewpoint of a deity which doesn't follow scientific method either?": That's a loaded question, because creation does follow the scientific method. More than evolution does.

"Please explain to me why the other deities are of less significance.": Because there's no scientific models based on them?

"Yet again, the bias from religious pressure groups is the promotion of a theory that is not based on scientific method. Atheist pressure groups are actually promoting Evolution which is based on scientific method. ": That's at least three times you've made that claim. It's past time to back it up.

"It does actually make sense that religion has been used to invoke power on the gullible. History shows it.": We are talking about Christianity here, not "religion".

Don't bother replying again unless you are prepared to show clearly that evolution is science and creation is not. Continuing to repeat the claim over and over is not an argument.

Philip J. Rayment 20:57, 4 January 2008 (EST)

You actually think that satire is “mocking” and “irrational” when Conservapedia depicts a political cartoon mocking liberalism on the liberal page. You employ a double standard here. I highly doubt you would allow a political cartoon mocking conservatism on the conservative page. Satire actually does make the situation better. It gets the attention of people who also feel that the action is unjust. Now if intelligent design would be allowed, would you then support introducing creationism and intelligent design based on the views of the Greek polytheists, Germanic pagans, Hinduists, etc.. There is no sense in introducing intelligent design and creationist theories, especially when they are rejected unanimously by scientists. Teach it in history, not in science class. Teach science based on the scientific method in science class. None of the creationist and intelligent design theories are based on the scientific method.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble but it is true that none of these theories are based on the scientific method. No, it is not anti-creationist. Nor is it used to simply silence creationist arguments. Just because the scientific method proves the theory of creationism and intelligent design wrong, doesn’t mean that it is trying to create a “monopoly”. Lay off the ad hominems. How do you really think this doesn’t address the argument? It is the argument. You have just used a non sequitur. Contrary to your belief, science does contradict the Bible. Now I know that there are countless contradictions, but I’ll start with one. Now in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, the Bible states that Earth has four corners. Hmmmm… well, science has already indisputably proven that the Earth is spherical (of course after long oppression from Christians because they were too stubborn to accept the truth). I could go on…

Now here’s a flat lie on your part. You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about. In Darwin’s autobiography, he explicitly stated that he had always believed that the Bible was indisputable and could not be contradicted. He never doubted the existence of God in his youth and that is a fact. Darwin later doubted the verifiability of the Bible when his scientific research led him to the conclusion that the Bible is pseudoscientific. And yet you continue to make unsubstantiated claims. All records of Darwin’s study and experimentation of the evolutionary process follow the scientific method. Creationism is theory based on no scientific research, hence not based on the scientific method. Don’t bother replying again unless you are willing to cite your assertions. Simply repeating the fabricated claim is utterly invalid and only furthers your hypocrisy. Staffordshire 19:15, 6 February 2008 (EST)

"...would you then support introducing creationism and intelligent design based on the views of the Greek polytheists, Germanic pagans, Hinduists, etc.": If they had scientific merit, then yes. Your question presumes that I agree with your view, which clearly I don't, so is an invalid question. That is, your question presumes that those beliefs and creationism and intelligent design all have no merit.

"There is no sense in introducing intelligent design and creationist theories, especially when they are rejected unanimously by scientists.": And you have the gall to call me a liar! Either this is a blatant lie, or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. ID and creationism are rejected by a majority, likely even a large majority, of scientists, but it is absolute nonsense to claim that it is rejected unanimously. You've blown your credibility right there. And seeing you ask for references (despite not supplying any yourself), see here.

"None of the creationist and intelligent design theories are based on the scientific method. ...it is true that none of these theories are based on the scientific method": So you assert, but fail to demonstrate.

"Just because the scientific method proves the theory of creationism and intelligent design wrong, doesn’t mean that it is trying to create a “monopoly”.": I never claimed that.

"Lay off the ad hominems.": What ad hominems?

"How do you really think this doesn’t address the argument? It is the argument. You have just used a non sequitur.": Huh? What doesn't? What is the argument? What non-sequitur?

"Contrary to your belief, science does contradict the Bible.": No it doesn't, and you fail to demonstrate your claim (although you do try).

"Now I know that there are countless contradictions...": Yet you fail to successfully demonstrate even one.

"Now in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, the Bible states that Earth has four corners. Hmmmm… well, science has already indisputably proven that the Earth is spherical ...": Oh dear! You've never hears of metaphor? It's an expression that is still used today, even by people who know that the world is spherical! You critics lambast us Bible-believers for taking the Bible literally (when we generally don't), but take metaphor as literal statements yourselves in order to try and find fault with it!

"...(of course after long oppression from Christians because they were too stubborn to accept the truth)...": Of course. Except that that statement is fiction.

"Now here’s a flat lie on your part.": It's only a lie if I say it knowing it to be false. I don't know it to be false.

"...[Darwin] explicitly stated that he had always believed that the Bible was indisputable and could not be contradicted.": You are ready to believe that I lied. How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?

"He never doubted the existence of God in his youth and that is a fact.": Who said anything about his youth?

"Darwin later doubted the verifiability of the Bible when his scientific research led him to the conclusion that the Bible is pseudoscientific.": Not according to Gould[1] and Ruse[2]. Note, that's another citation like you asked for, despite not supplying any yourself!

"All records of Darwin’s study and experimentation of the evolutionary process follow the scientific method": Probably basically true, actually, but then it's also been said that the one thing that the Origin of species didn't have is the origin of species! He carefully and scientifically documented variation within a species, but didn't show anything actually evolving.

"Don’t bother replying again unless you are willing to cite your assertions.": Given that you didn't cite your own assertions, I don't see why I should have. But I did anyway. I'd suggest that you don't bother replying unless you get a better idea what you are talking about.

"Simply repeating the fabricated claim is utterly invalid and only furthers your hypocrisy.": Well, given that my claims were not fabricated and not invalid, it follows that I wasn't hypocritical. So what's that say about your ability to judge?

Philip J. Rayment 21:17, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Since you believe that views with scientific merit can be included, the Bible should ‘’not’’ be included whatsoever. In fact, all of those other creationist views had more scientific merit due to the astronomical basis for their evidence while the Bible has none whatsoever. So, the Bible is henceforth scientifically invalid and should not be incorporated into the classroom for scientific purposes.

Oh, yes I do have the “gall” to call you a ‘’liar’’. Duly because it is unanimously reject by scientists, yet you provide a citation that lists scientists with no accountable information on a scientific consensus between one another or analysis on the subject. That just completely destroys your credibility, not only because you have no idea what you are talking about but you obviously have no idea what a scientist does, in order for them to reach a ‘’unanimous consensus’’ they must actually study the given protocol and approve it within the scientific community. Yet, this is something you do not have. However, I do[3] and it is undeniably unanimous.

Yet, you question my assertion that the creationist and intelligent design theories are not based on scientific method and you cannot find a source that does demonstrate your argument as a fact. But since your credibility is lacking due to the previous source, I cannot expect you to provide any resourceful claims. But to answer your question…[4]

Well, I didn’t think it was necessary to embarrass you but I will. Revelation 7:1 refers to angels standing on the four corners of the Earth. Of course there is also unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth is spherical so it cannot possibly have corners. Yet, just as there are biblical fundamentalists who deny evolution because it contradicts the Bible, there are those that deny the Earth being spherical because it contradicts the Bible. Yes, they are out there. They’re called the Flat Earth Society. Was that not enough for you? Genesis 1:16 states that the Moon is a light just like the Sun. Wrong. The Moon is a natural satellite that reflects sun light.

But now you’re saying that you take the Bible literally and the “four corners” is just a metaphor. Well, then the whole damn Bible must be a metaphor since it is so erroneous! You just pick and choose what you want to believe to suit your prejudice while labeling everything else as “metaphors”. The creators of the Flat Earth Society took the “four corners” passage literally just as you take the text that contradicts evolution literally. You are no different that those fundamentalists.

Of course you had to label another point as “fiction” just like you label everything else you don’t want to follow as “metaphor”.

I am very ready to believe that you have lied because you have destroyed your credibility. Yet, Darwin always expressed an orthodox belief in God as described by those who knew him best, that was only until he began his research that he began losing faith. Please show me proof that he lied.

Staffordshire 21:39, 12 February 2008 (EST)

"Since you believe that views with scientific merit can be included, the Bible should ‘’not’’ be included whatsoever.": If you are saying that the Bible itself should not be introduced as evidence, then I agree. But that doesn't preclude introducing scientific evidence for a view that is itself based on or consistent with the Bible.

"Oh, yes I do have the “gall” to call you a ‘’liar’’. Duly because it is unanimously reject by scientists..."": Dead wrong, as I proved.

"...yet you provide a citation that lists scientists with no accountable information on a scientific consensus between one another or analysis on the subject.": I don't even follow this statement. You are admitting that these people are scientists, and it is clear that these people do not "reject" "intelligent design and creationist theories". That itself is enough to prove that your claim was wrong.

"However, I do[3] and it is undeniably unanimous": Huh? I deny it! That document does not even pretend to be the unanimous view of every scientist. Do you understand the meaning of the word "unanimous"?

"Yet, you question my assertion that the creationist and intelligent design theories are not based on scientific method and you cannot find a source that does demonstrate your argument as a fact.". You leap to amazing conclusions! How do you know I can't find one? I pointed out that you didn't demonstrate your argument, so in return you claim that I cannot demonstrate an argument that I'm not sure I even explicitly made!

"But since your credibility is lacking due to the previous source...": It's only lacking in your mind. My "previous source" proved my point.

"But to answer your question…[4]": Okay, so now you have at least supplied some sort of substantiation to your claim. Not that it stands up to scrutiny though. That article in itself is replete with misleading statements and outright errors. For example, leading creationists do not claim "creation [as] described in Genesis to be a scientific account". What they claim is that the account in Genesis is scientifically accurate, but not that it is a "scientific account". Also, it is patently false to claim that "no biologist has been led to doubt that evolution has occurred". Further, it is bigoted in referring to people who believe in creation as "creationists" and people who believe in evolution as "scientists", as though there were not scientists on both sides of the debate.

"Well, I didn’t think it was necessary to embarrass you but I will. Revelation 7:1 refers to angels standing on the four corners of the Earth. Of course there is also unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth is spherical so it cannot possibly have corners.": Which in no way refutes that it could be metaphor. I should also add that the language of much of Revelation is apocalyptic, not narrative, so is hardly a good place to be finding examples of supposedly-literal statements.

"...there are those [biblical fundamentalists?] that deny the Earth being spherical because it contradicts the Bible.": Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

"Yes, they are out there. They’re called the Flat Earth Society. Was that not enough for you?": No, that was not enough. There may be a few people who believe in a flat Earth, and who use the odd biblical reference to support that view, but I doubt that there is anyone who believes in a flat Earth because it contradicts the Bible. And I've also heard that the (almost non-existent) Flat Earth Society is a joke group, not a serious group. And even if there were some who believe that, demonstrating that one group wrongly believe something because of a particular interpretation of the Bible does not mean that a different group having an interpretation that you disagree with is also wrong.

"Genesis 1:16 states that the Moon is a light just like the Sun. Wrong. The Moon is a natural satellite that reflects sun light.": As I said above, creationists don't claim that the creation account is a scientific account. That is, although they believe that it's scientifically accurate, it's not intended as a scientific treatise given in scientific language. Furthermore, Genesis 1:16 says that the Sun and the moon were made at the same time, but it does not say that that the moon is "just like" the sun.

"But now you’re saying that you take the Bible literally ...": No I'm not. So you are wrong yet again. I take the Bible the way that it was intended to be understood, that is, taking the literal parts as literal, the metaphor as metaphor, etc.

"Well, then the whole ... Bible must be a metaphor since it is so erroneous!": Metaphor is determined by the language, not by whether or not it is literally correct. And the Bible is not erroneous.

"You just pick and choose what you want to believe to suit your prejudice while labeling everything else as “metaphors”. ": No I don't, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to decide for me how I understand things. You are jumping to conclusions about things that you know next to nothing about (such as what I believe) and then accusing me of those things. As I just mentioned, metaphor is determined by the language, not by whether I want to believe it or not.

"The creators of the Flat Earth Society took the “four corners” passage literally just as you take the text that contradicts evolution literally. You are no different that those fundamentalists.": Aren't I? First, I doubt that the creator(s) of the Flat Earth Society could accurately be described as "fundamentalist". Second, I take the creation account as literal because that's the way it was meant to be understood: as actual history, not as metaphor.

"Of course you had to label another point as “fiction” just like you label everything else you don’t want to follow as “metaphor”. ": Well, I've shown that the second part of that is wrong, so it follows that the first part is wrong also.

"I am very ready to believe that you have lied because you have destroyed your credibility.": You have not demonstrated that I have destroyed my credibility, so your claim of me lying (which is a non-sequitur anyway) fails.

"Please show me proof that [Darwin] lied.": I have no obligation to do so. First, I never claimed that he lied, so that alone is sufficient reason why I don't have to show proof. Second, you accused me of lying simply because I repeated a claim made by prominent evolutionists that, according to you, contradicted what Darwin said. That doesn't make me a liar, and neither does it make those evolutionists liars. They may have simply been mistaken. Or perhaps you are. I was merely pointing out that you were very ready to accuse me of lying, yet didn't appear to have even considered the possibility that Darwin lied.

Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Any form of science that goes by the scientific method and is unanimously accepted as fact by scientific consensus should be taught in public schools. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is consistent with the Bible, ‘’The Picture of Dorian Gray’’ or ‘’Daniel Deronda’’.

You didn’t prove me a thing. You provided me a list of scientists with no evidence of their collaboration and expertise on the subject at hand. It is you that is dead wrong. You clearly do not understand the meaning of unanimous, especially in scientific consensus.

Obviously since you haven’t provided a source that proves intelligent design as a fact, that must mean that you cannot find one, which leads me to the conclusion that there is no evidence of intelligent design being based on the scientific method. Feel free to show me a source. I’m waiting.

Your previous source didn’t prove a thing. Your previous source gave a list of scientists with no verifiability of collaboration, study, or expertise on the subject. I, however have provided a source in this favour with respect to evolution.

Yes, creationists do claim it to be a scientific account if they claim it to be scientifically accurate. It is the same thing! That’s like saying that World War II didn’t begin in Europe but world War II started in Europe.

Yet, do you even realise that among this scientific study, there is no doubt among these collaborating biologists that evolution has occurred? Read it. That was the survey among those scientists who have studied and collaborated within the subject thoroughly, not some scientists that cannot verify an expertise, collaboration, consensus, or even experimentation on the subject.

In the case that the “four corners” are a metaphor, then the whole Bible must be a metaphor. You cannot refute that either. It just shows that the crackpots that wrote the Bible truly believed that the Earth was flat.

I have proved you wrong so you are just making yourself less credible by saying “rubbish” because you are much too weak to disprove the argument. Well, it is not rubbish. The Flat Earth Society was founded by fundamentalists just like you who take the Bible too literally and label whatever they don’t want to follow as “metaphors”. Just like you! You are just another of those small groups of fundies that uses the very odd Biblical reference that Earth was created based on the story of Genesis. Unfortunately, your doubts cannot be sustained because the Flat Earth Society is still active and they truly believe in that Biblical rubbish just like you.

The Bible calls the moon a light. The moon is not a light, simple! The Bible is wrong which is something it has a reputation of.

Yes, the founders of the Flat Earth Society were very fundamentalist and they didn’t doubt a single word of the Bible. What makes you think that the creation account was any more literal than Revelation?

Yes, you have an obligation to do so. You did claim he lied. Now you’ve just lied again. Now please show me which evolutionists contradicted what Darwin said. Despite the fact that you jumped to the conclusion of the fact that Darwin lied while giving so evidence for his dishonesty, you refuse to doubt the authenticity of a very scientifically inaccurate book. I smell a double-standard. Staffordshire 12:35, 22 February 2008 (EST)

"Any form of science that goes by the scientific method and is unanimously accepted as fact by scientific consensus should be taught in public schools.": It has to be unanimously accepted as fact by scientific consensus? That seems to be a bit restrictive, but even if that is so, why then is evolution taught?

"You didn’t prove me a thing. You provided me a list of scientists with no evidence of their collaboration and expertise on the subject at hand.": Huh? I provided you with a list of scientists who are creationists. That in itself is evidence. And many of those in the list have links to articles about them which give further information about them. What exactly do you want to know further?

"It is you that is dead wrong.": Nope.

"You clearly do not understand the meaning of unanimous, especially in scientific consensus.": You mean that "unanimous" doesn't mean "complete agreement"? What dictionary are you using?

"Obviously since you haven’t provided a source that proves intelligent design as a fact, that must mean that you cannot find one...": You have straaange logic, especially given that I've already answered this point.

"...which leads me to the conclusion that there is no evidence of intelligent design being based on the scientific method": That is also illogical. Not being able to prove something (even assuming that was the case) does not mean that there is no evidence.

"Feel free to show me a source. I’m waiting.": What would you accept? A scientist simply saying that it was scientific, for example?

"I, however have provided a source in this favour with respect to evolution.": Which I've already pointed out didn't even claim unanimity, let alone demonstrate it.

"Yes, creationists do claim it to be a scientific account if they claim it to be scientifically accurate. It is the same thing!": It depends on your definition of "scientific account", I guess, but no, I would (and do) argue that it's not the same thing. Suppose that a scientist ventured into a dangerous forest area of Amazon, and found and studied a new species of insect. Upon his return, he writes two books. One book describes the new species of insect in great detail, such as how long it lives, what it feeds on, where it lives (e.g. in hives), and so on. It is, in all respects, a scientific account of the insect. The other book describes the expedition he went on to study the insect. It's a personal story, not a scientific account. It describes the problems he had raising money for the expedition, the issues he had with obtaining visas and permits, the help he was given by the local population despite not knowing their language, and the encounters he had with dangerous creatures. In describing these adventures, he uses the correct names of the places and the creatures he encountered, and accurately describes them, but this book is, nevertheless, not a scientific account, yet it is scientifically accurate in what it does mention. That's the sort of thing I'm getting at here. The creation account is not written as a scientific account, with the terminology and sorts of details that a scientist would want to read in it. But it is, nevertheless, scientifically accurate.

"Yet, do you even realise that among this scientific study, there is no doubt among these collaborating biologists that evolution has occurred?": Sorry, what scientific study? Your two links ([3] and [4] above), were not studies. And of course something produced by evolutionists is going to say that evolution occurred!

"In the case that the “four corners” are a metaphor, then the whole Bible must be a metaphor.": Why?

"You cannot refute that either.": I don't see the need, because you've not made a case worth refuting.

"It just shows that the crackpots that wrote the Bible truly believed that the Earth was flat.": Now you're simply being nasty, without showing any evidence. Any more of that and I just might give you a short block.

"I have proved you wrong...": No you haven't.

"... so you are just making yourself less credible by saying “rubbish” because you are much too weak to disprove the argument.": No, I say "rubbish" because the argument is so ridiculous. And as I've just said above, you need to make a case before there's any onus on me to refute it. Simple assertion does not a case make.

"The Flat Earth Society was founded by fundamentalists just like...": Oh? Just like me? Can you prove that? Or can you even prove that (a) they are not a joke society, and (b) that the Bible is the reason they believe in a flat Earth, rather than just an additional bit of justification for their view?

"You are just another of those small groups of fundies that uses the very odd Biblical reference that Earth was created based on the story of Genesis.": On the contrary, I'm one of a very large group of people throughout history as well as presently who believe that.

"The Bible calls the moon a light. The moon is not a light, simple!": Define "light". That is, provide the definition of the Hebrew word translated as "light" in English Bibles. The Bible does not say, as you are implying, that the moon generates its own light.

"The Bible is wrong ...": Not on that point.

"...which is something it has a reputation of.": Only because of misinformation spread by fundie atheists, as you are doing here.

"What makes you think that the creation account was any more literal than Revelation?": Its language, for one thing. The creation account is narrative; Revelation is apocalyptic language.

"Yes, you have an obligation to do so. You did claim he lied.": You are good at making assertions and not so good at providing evidence. I didn't claim that, so I guess that makes you a liar (by your logic; I'll be more gracious and think that you are just blinded by your own biases). The rest of your post is either based on your inaccurate claims or is just more (or the same) unsubstantiated assertions.

Philip J. Rayment 05:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

What exactly is your argument for creationism and against evolution? I can’t see that you have made it clear, although if you have, please point it out. That rant about the scientific account is quite twisted. The source saying that creationists use the scientific account of genesis is clearly unambiguous. I don’t see how you can take umbrage to it. There is much to be said for the account of the Bible, however. The Flat Earth Society was certainly serious in respect to their belief that Earth is flat (based on Biblical quotes) but if you want to accept the assumption that the Flat Earth Society is a joke or that Charles Darwin lied in his journal (which is highly unlikely considering his devout religious upbringing), then you must accept the possibility that the Bible is not the word of a supreme deity and really just annals of faerie tales. The problem with the Bible is that it is no more than the stuff of legends. There are many passages that have been defended by fundamentalists, but are challenged by so much scientific evidence that the apologists are eventually forced to ignore them. The Bible says that Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22). This one is commonly used by Christian apologists to defend the Bible’s purported scientific accuracy. However, Earth is not round, Earth is spherical. And in case you were wondering, they did have a word for sphere in old Hebrew, which is basically synonymous with “ball” (Isaiah 40:22) (same book, too). If we were to believe that the Bible was the unmoving, unchanging word of God and scientifically infallible, we must believe that Earth rests on pillars (Psalm 75:3, Samuel 2:8). Oh, and let us not forget that big dispute between Galileo and the Church in which Galileo claimed that Earth isn’t stationary when the Bible clearly said that it was (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104:5, Psalm 96:10). The point is that the no religious text, including the Bible, should be put forward or even juxtaposed with science. One is a personal belief system and another is the gathering of information to determine the forces of nature. I don’t see how Galileo and Darwin are any different in this case. Kilmarnock 12:34, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Your comment that "One is a personal belief system and another is the gathering of information to determine the forces of nature" is itself a personal belief, and one that I don't share. Rather, one is the infallible world of the omniscient God, and the other, particularly when it comes to evolution, is the fallible musings of people who are unable to observe the events they say happened, and who are generally storytelling from an anti-God point of view.

What exactly are my arguments? Sorry, but that's such a huge question that it can't be adequately answered here. Try reading many of the articles here. And if you don't know what the arguments are, then you have no business trying to say that the arguments are wrong. In a nutshell, however, it is as I put above: creation (the event) has been revealed to us by the Creator Himself, so we can reliably believe that. Evolution is a story intended to explain how things came to be without God, and is not really science, as it is a story about the unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable, past. Further, what evidence can be gathered (fossils, etc.) are more consistent with the creationary view than the evolutionary view.

"That rant about the scientific account is quite twisted.": Oh? In what way?

"The source saying that creationists use the scientific account of genesis is clearly unambiguous.": What source?

"...if you want to accept the assumption that the Flat Earth Society is a joke ... then you must accept the possibility that the Bible is not the word of a supreme deity and really just annals of faerie tales": Why? One is not dependent on the other.

"...if you want to accept ... that Charles Darwin lied in his journal ...": I you reread my previous posts, I explicitly denied claiming that Darwin lied.

"The problem with the Bible is that it is no more than the stuff of legends.": According to whom? You've supplied no evidence of that, and there is a widespread belief, and plenty of evidence, that it's accurate history, so the onus is on you to support that claim.

"There are many passages that have been defended by fundamentalists, but are challenged by so much scientific evidence that the apologists are eventually forced to ignore them.": I don't know of one such passage that is "ignored".

"The Bible says that Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22)...However, Earth is not round, Earth is spherical. (rest snipped)": This is a classic bibliosceptic case of trying to find problems where none exist by playing with words. A recent New Scientist article attacking creationists referred to the "scientific fact" of the "roundness of the Earth" (and it was taken to task for not describing it as spherical!). On my Wikipedia user page I referred to the world being "round", only to have an evolutionist tell me that I wasn't correct, as "The planet earth is closer to an oblate spheriod, or a generalized ellipsoid with lateral heterogeneities"! That is, it wasn't actually spherical!

Another problem with bibliosceptic arguments is that, despite falsely accusing creationists of taking the Bible "literally", they do it themselves! Your claim about the Earth being supported on pillars and being unmovable is supported by a series of verses, every one taken from a passage of poetry or song! Haven't you ever heard of poetic licence? And Galileo was a creationist, objecting to the secular views that the church had adopted. Kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution!

Philip J. Rayment 09:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Religion is simply just one’s personal belief system; that’s not an opinion. Religion as a concept cannot possibly be the infallible word of God because that is a too specific description of religion. Some religions are not even theistic. If you are referring to Christianity as being infallible, that is your own personal belief. It is not science and they should not go hand in hand and your opinion on whether or not evolution is fallible is also a personal belief as it is unscientific to reject it simply because it contradicts your personal beliefs (religion). Hence, religion and science are two different concepts. Now when you say that the people who are unable to observe the events that say happened (in regards to evolution), it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution. Neither is evolution from an anti-theist or even anti-religious perspective. Evolutionary thought has been prevalent even thousands of years before Charles Darwin. In fact, many of the scientists who proposed it and/or studied it were religious or at least theists themselves, including Charles Darwin. The idea of storytelling is also quite wrong. Evolution would have never survived in the scientific field if it had only been based on storytelling. Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided. Religion on the other hand, particularly those belief systems stemmed from the Bible are based on no more than stories themselves. Christians who use the “Genesis account” or “consider Genesis to be scientifically accurate” (call it what you want, I can’t see the difference), are taking a text literally that is no more than storytelling itself. Nor can a Christian prove that otherwise by observing scientific experimentation.

I would be curious to know your arguments, at least in a nutshell. The page appears to be full of them but I don’t exactly understand your points. If you are saying that this Web site (I read this[5] article) reflects your personal beliefs, I’ll assume that for now (unless you state otherwise). However, that Web site is quite disturbing to me. The site assumes that evolution “removes any clear source of authority in our lives” which is wrong. Evolution does not, in fact. Evolution only reflects that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. You may look in any scientific textbook or ask any evolutionary biologist and they will disagree with this site’s statement. Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in God. And remember that Christianity is not the only belief system that describes the concept of “God”. You say that I have no business to state that the arguments are wrong. I never said they are wrong. However, if you do indeed believe in what this site is saying, it goes to show that you do not have a clear understanding of evolution and thus can’t say that evolution is wrong either or even argue against it. Arguing against evolution when you don’t understand it is bad enough but when you demonise it, it is a sign of weakness. Evolution is most certainly not the cause of broken lives, broken families, suicide, Nazism, or communism (if you disagree with this, please tell me but I am going by the article on the Web site you provided).

When I say the source that says creationists use the scientific account of Genesis, I mean the one that was provided earlier in the debate[6]. I really do not understand what umbrage you take over the “scientific account” statement. What makes it so twisted is that you state that saying “Genesis is a scientific account” and that “Genesis is scientifically accurate” imply two different things and that to say that Genesis is a scientific account is misleading. How exactly is this misleading and how does a different syntax (in this instance) imply something else? I am also curious to know why you accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke. Accepting the possibility of two different things being dubious has nothing to do with whether or not the two juxtaposed things are related other than in the context of whether or not their legitimacy is dubious. So if you give the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke, you might as well bring up the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals. Why the double-standard?

In your previous post, you select a quote from my previous post like this: "...if you want to accept ... that Charles Darwin lied in his journal ...". Yes, I indeed said that but you left out that I said that "if you want to accept the assumption" between the ellipsis. I said you only assume so. In an earlier post, you said about Darwin's journal entry: "How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?". Thus, you give the possibility that he lied (although, you don't support this assertion with any facts).

In the event that you disagree that the Bible is not the stuff of legends, I must ask how does the Bible differ from any other archaic texts that describe things not known to be observed by a scientific consensus such as dragons or leviathans? Sure, it may be held to have historical accuracy. The Nibelungenlied served as a useful tool for historians to uncover the history of the Burgundians. However, the details about Siegfried and the dragon are usually considered to be legends. (One may choose to reject these considerations made by historians and believe the legends, of course.) I'm just curious as to how the Bible differs from such other legendary manuscripts. But if you insist on seeing a legitimate source that agrees with my point about the Bible being the stuff of legends, I feel obliged to reveal one[7].

Regarding those scripture references, how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words? There is certainly a problem in the scripture. Earth is not round. It is spherical. It is incorrect to say that it is round. Bible sceptics do not "falsely" claim that creationists take the Bible literally. The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally? After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary. If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song? In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer. Why would Hannah state in a prayer that God does something he really doesn't? Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so. However, they tend to ignore some of those passages that give some precepts that would be considered wacky today. If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (Leviticus 19:27), mix textiles for attire (Leviticus 19:19), eat anything with blood (Leviticus 19:26) (I don't see fundamentalists objecting to restaurants serving rare steaks), women teaching men (1 Timothy 2:12), tattooing, and piercing (Leviticus 19:28). Oh, and let us not forget those many passages that justify slavery and cruel and unusual punishment. My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate, but do not represent even the norms of most Christian fundamentalists today. Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo and fundamentalists who have used the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justified racism with the Curse of Canaan. And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin and fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus. It just shows that history repeats itself and I have yet to see how the abuse of dubious Bible passages regarding moral and scientific viewpoints from today's fundamentalists differ from those in the past.

I am aware of Galileo's faithfulness to Christianity in spite of his clash with the Church, but I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. That seems quite ironic, especially considering Galileo's situation. Could you cite this assertion? In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary. The fact that the Church took those passages literally which resulted in a clash between the Bible and astronomy proves that there are passages which fundamentalists will defend in spite of scientific evidence against them, kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution! Kilmarnock 22:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I agree that religion is one's personal belief system, but where I disagree is that it is just that, rather than something founded on fact, such as the fact of God's existence and of God creating the universe. I don't understand your objection to religion not being the infallible Word of God "because that is too specific a description".

I agree that Christianity is not science. I accept that religion and science are two different concepts. I reject that science is superior to God's revealed Word.

I don't reject evolution "simply because it contradicts your personal beliefs". I reject it because (a) it contradicts the revealed and infallible Word of God, and (b) it contradicts scientific observations.

"...it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.": Oh? How does it show that?

"Neither is evolution from an anti-theist or even anti-religious perspective.": Agreed. But it is anti-Christian. Darwin started off believing in God, but evolutionists like Michael Ruse and Stephen Jay Gould have said that the motive behind evolution was to replace God, and that does seem to be the case with Darwin.

"Evolution would have never survived in the scientific field if it had only been based on storytelling.": Why not? I say that it has survived because it allows atheists to be "intellectually fulfilled", to quote Richard Dawkins.

"Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.": Incorrect. What experimentation can you do to see if fish changed into amphibians millions of years ago? Even if you showed today that fish can evolve into amphibians, it would still not prove that it happened millions of years ago. And the evidence today is that fish can't evolve into amphibians. That is, we understand enough about genetics to know why fish don't change into amphibians. It's only the faith of evolutionists (not evidence) that says that it did happen in the past.

"Christians who use the “Genesis account” or “consider Genesis to be scientifically accurate” (call it what you want, I can’t see the difference)...": That wasn't the distinction I was making. The distinction was between "scientifically accurate" and a "scientific account".

"Christians who use the “Genesis account” ... are taking a text literally that is no more than storytelling itself.": Oh? What makes it "storytelling"? Since when does an eyewitness account count as "storytelling"?

"If you are saying that this Web site (I read this[8] article) reflects your personal beliefs, I’ll assume that for now (unless you state otherwise).": You assume correctly.

"However, that Web site is quite disturbing to me.": Not surprising. Evolutionists don't like to be told they are wrong.

"The site assumes that evolution “removes any clear source of authority in our lives” which is wrong. Evolution does not, in fact.": Yet you provide no counter argument to the reasons they gave.

"You may look in any scientific textbook or ask any evolutionary biologist and they will disagree with this site’s statement.": And yet the article quoted evolutionary biologists that agreed with that point!

"Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in God. And remember that Christianity is not the only belief system that describes the concept of “God”.": Belief in evolution replaces belief in the creator God of the Bible, because the former makes the latter unneccesary, and because the former contradicts the biblical account.

"You say that I have no business to state that the arguments are wrong. I never said they are wrong.": Then what are you arguing about?

"However, if you do indeed believe in what this site is saying, it goes to show that you do not have a clear understanding of evolution and thus can’t say that evolution is wrong either or even argue against it.": Another fact-free statement of your opinion. Why would it show that? The site was largely written by scientists who learned evolution, and in some if not most cases by people who used to believe in evolution. What makes you think they don't understand it?

"Arguing against evolution when you don’t understand it is bad enough but when you demonise it, it is a sign of weakness.": You mean like the evolutionists demonise creation rather than actually address its arguments? No, creationists address the arguments of evolution. That's not "demonising" it.

"Evolution is most certainly not the cause of broken lives, broken families, suicide, Nazism, or communism...": Just because you say so? Because other articles on that web-site will back up those claims.

"What makes it so twisted is that you state that saying “Genesis is a scientific account” and that “Genesis is scientifically accurate” imply two different things and that to say that Genesis is a scientific account is misleading. How exactly is this misleading and how does a different syntax (in this instance) imply something else?": I explained that earlier, with the example of the Amazonian scientist. What's unclear about that explanation?

"I am also curious to know why you accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke.": I recall reading that somewhere once. What's so wrong with accepting that that explanation is a possibility?

"So if you give the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke, you might as well bring up the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals. Why the double-standard?": It's not a double standard at all. I accept the possibility of anything that (a) I haven't investigated, and (b) is not blatantly illogical or against known facts. I don't know a lot about the Flat Earth society, so I accept the possibility that it is a joke society, and I also accept the possibility that it's not. But just quoting their existence to me does not mean that it's not a joke society. I don't accept the possibility that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales because this is something that I know a lot more about and know that there's good reason for rejecting that idea.

"you left out that I said that "if you want to accept the assumption" between the ellipsis. I said you only assume so. In an earlier post, you said about Darwin's journal entry: "How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?". Thus, you give the possibility that he lied (although, you don't support this assertion with any facts).": An assumption and a possibility are two different things. A possibility is something that you consider possible, but don't necessarily believe to be the case (but don't reject either). An assumption is something that you do believe, even if you do so without complete certainty. I pointed out that it's possible that Darwin lied, not that I think he did; that is, I made no assumption that he did.

"...how does the Bible differ from any other archaic texts that describe things not known to be observed by a scientific consensus such as dragons or leviathans?": The question is loaded, as it implies that the only things accepted from ancient texts are things that are observed by scientists. That Ceasar Augustus ruled Rome, for example, is something known only from ancient texts, not from scientific observation. Almost all ancient history is known in this way, and to that extent, there is no difference between the Bible and other ancient texts. But of course the Bible is different, in a number of ways. First, we know that the Jews went to great lengths to copy it accurately, so rather than being a distorted copy of a distorted copy of ... the original, as many ancient documents are, it is a very accurate copy of a very accurate copy of ... the original. Second, archaeologists have found evidence confirming a very large number of details mentioned in the Bible, so we know that it is a very reliable document. Third, it claims to be the testimony of the omniscient God, and there is evidence, such as consistency of authorship over at least 2,000 years and fulfilment of prophecy, that supports that claim.

"... the details about Siegfried and the dragon are usually considered to be legends.": True, they are usually considered that, but there's good reason for thinking that dragon "legends" have a basis in fact, and in particular, in dinosaurs.

"...how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words?": How do I "cite" it? I'm not sure what you mean, but I did substantiate it, and you have not refuted that.

"Earth is not round": Then why did New Scientist say that it is? Answer: Because "round" is a general term that can include "spherical". That you deny this is why SoI say that this is playing with words.

"The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally?": Because the Psalms and the verse from 1 Samual are poetry or song, not narrative, like Genesis. If I said to you that it's raining cats and dogs, would you understand me to mean that it's raining very heavily, or that felines and canines are falling from the sky? Whether or not you take words literally depends on their context. The context of Psalms is that it's poetry/song. The context of Genesis 1 is that it's narrative.

"After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary.": Just like you are doing so: in order to justify their/your point of view, not because the words require that.

"If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song?": Because not every conversation, song, poem, metaphor, parable, etc. is couched in scientifically-literal terms. Why in recent times have we said that Australia rides on the sheep's back? Not because this is literally true, but because a lot of Australia's income derived from wool. This sort of thing occurs very frequently; there's nothing odd about the Bible doing it also. It's only bibliosceptics like yourself who try and make out that there's something wrong with the Bible doing so, and/or make out that one is unable to tell the difference.

"In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer.": It's a prayer in poetic form.

"Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so.": Of course. Because it does, and not in poetry.

"If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (rest snipped)": Because the Bible includes laws specific to the Jews under the Old Covenant. The laws themselves, specifying punishments for certain deeds, are no longer applicable. The principles behind some of the laws, such as God making a man and a woman, not a man and a man (a matter of history, not law) still apply, though. That is, God created sexual intercourse and marriage to be between a male and a female in a state of life commitment, and even though the law regarding what should happen to someone going against this is no longer applicable, the fact that this is the way we were designed is still the case.

"My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate...": Yet all the examples you quoted made no scientific claims.

"Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo": "Fundamentalists"? That term was only coined in the early 20th century, and it is not appropriate to apply it to those that opposed Galileo, as their motivation was not one of sticking to the biblical account. Rather, the ones that opposed Galileo are more like the liberal churches who today have compromised with the atheistic origins myth (evolution).

"And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin...": That wrongly presupposes that the evolutionary view is scientific.

"...fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus": I doubt that you know the meaning of "tolerance". It means to put up with something you're opposed to, not to accept all things as legitimate. And aren't you intolerant of creationism?

"I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. ... Could you cite this assertion?": See here. And for more on the whole affair, see here.

"In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary.": I've since answered this on the Main Page discussion page. Your proof texts were all poetic passages.

Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

As I have said before, “religion” is not the infallible word of God simply because the word “religion” is too abstract. There are atheistic religions (e.g. those that do not have a God or Gods). A religion is a personal belief system and if you are referring to Christianity as the “infallible word of God”, that is a specific personal belief system. Nor is religion always founded on fact (although some are). If you want to demonstrate the factuality of religion, you must first understand what religion is (it is not defined as the “infallible word of God”, not all religions are theistic) and you must secondly demonstrate which religion so as to provide evidence for its factuality as different religions have different “factualities”. Keep in mind that it is not a fact until you prove it. If you are certain that religion is superior to science, you must demonstrate this claim with evidence of not just a subjective nature. Otherwise, anyone may claim that any school of knowledge is beyond religion or science for that matter while demonstrating this on the mere basis of subjectivity. You state that you reject evolution simply because it contradicts the “infallible word of God”. Well, the infallible word of God is your personal belief. It is nonscientific and subjective. To legitimately reject it, you should first demonstrate how you are certain that this personal belief system of yours has more objective plausibility than evolution. Nor does evolution contradict with scientific observations. Scientific observations give strong objective support for evolution. Unless there is something scientific you know of which contradicts with evolution. If there is something, I would be interested in seeing it.

You quoted me as saying “…it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.” And you ask me how that is so. But you removed the first part of the sentence which actually has your answer in it. My words in full were: “When you say that the people who are unable to observe the events that say happened (in regards to evolution), it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.” There’s your answer as to “how it shows that”. The people who observe evolution are able to observe the events that occur. Evolution has been observed since Charles Darwin himself experimented with it. As I have said before, if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it, let alone reject it. So there is no reason to reject it simply because of religious interests.

How exactly is evolution anti-Christian? Just because Darwin experienced a loss of faith, doesn’t mean that evolution is inconsistent with Christianity. As I have said before, there are unscientific factoids in the Bible (even irrelevant to evolution) that many Christians ignore because of scientific evidence, thus a large majority of Christians accept evolution as a fact and still believe in God. But you also say that evolution was used as a tool to “replace God”, well remember that Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion in the world. If the intention of evolution was to “replace God” then evolution wouldn’t simply be anti-Christian but anti-theist. But since there are theistic evolutionists who have proposed evolution before Darwin, this goes to show that the idea that evolution was meant to “replace God” is wrong. Keep in mind that evolution is not a political position. If you are referring to Darwinism as having the motive of “replacing God”, that is no less dubious than the previous claim. Darwinism is merely the specific observations and hypotheses of evolution as Charles Darwin recorded it. It bears nothing of a political agenda in the scientific observations, regardless if some evolutionary theorists have suggested that this is the case. They have nothing to verify this with but speculation.

You say that it is incorrect that “Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.” But you only select a specific example without observing the actual examples that have been tested in laboratories. Animals have been observed to have mutated through ancestral genes. Animals have been especially observed to mutate to adapt to a change in environment to sustain the survival of their kind (i.e. evolution). One of the most prominent examples of this mutation is that of Darwin ’s finches. When Darwin performed experiments in the Galapagos Islands, he introduced a species of finches in an environment of slightly larger nuts to crack with their beaks. Within a period of only a few generations of these finches, the width and strength of the beaks of the descendant finches had greatly increased to suit the environment of larger nuts as food. This observation was only a fig-leaf. However, the idea of introducing animals into another environment in which they must mutate to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive has been proven to be successful with scientific experiments. Given these scientific experiments and the fossil record of common ancestry with many animal species, evolutionary biologists are able to observe the DNA of the fossils and compare it with the DNA of the hypothetical descendants of these creatures to determine that the evolutionary mutations of these creatures over long periods of time are successful in providing evidence for evolution. And your statement that evidence today states that fish cannot evolve into amphibians is incorrect. Fossils of amphibious fish known as fishapods have been found and the experimentation I have just explained has provided scientific evidence that just as trout had to mutate to survive in brackish water and salt water, the common ancestors of many fish alive today had indeed mutated to survive in both water and air environments. And we still see evidence of close descendants of fishapods today (i.e. lungfish). So no, it is not merely “faith”. Faith doesn’t work in scientific experimentations. As I have said before, if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it. No evolutionary biologist will tell you it is only their “faith” that assures them of the plausibility of evolution.

You’ve already said before that evolution is storytelling (although are unable to support this statement). Now you ask how an eyewitness account counts as storytelling. Well, for all we know, Genesis isn’t even an eyewitness account. But that’s beside the point. Look up “storytelling” in a dictionary. It fits perfectly with your description of Genesis. It is merely the telling of a creation story, hence storytelling. How this is any more plausible than any other versions of creation storytelling is something you have yet to explain.

Since you are making the distinction between “scientifically accurate” and “scientific account”, is there a difference between the two, namely that assumes Genesis to be either fully or partly “scientifically accurate” or “scientifically accountable”? But the Web site is not disturbing to me because I am being told I am wrong. Nor is that a trait specific to evolutionists and not creationists. I guarantee that there are plenty of creationists out there who are utterly disturbed by being told that they are wrong. When you say that I provide no counter argument against the Web site’s claim, you are incorrect. Right after I wrote that evolution does not remove a source of authority, I said that “Evolution only reflects that all organisms descended from a common ancestor”. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the belief in God. I have already countered the argument that evolution is antitheist. One can believe in God and still believe in evolution as there are theistic evolutionists who may very well disagree with the Web site’s statement and many of the early proponents of evolution were theists themselves. The site gives no claim as to how evolution actually removes authority from a person’s life or even bothers to explain how the concept of evolution and God are inconsistent with each other. And where you get the idea that there are evolutionary biologists quoted on that site as agreeing with the site’s statement, I cannot concur. However, if you are referring to the atheistic statement made by Dr Will Provine, this proves nothing. Dr Provine only expressed his disbelief in God and the meaning of life. He by no means says that evolution proves that there is no God and the meaning of life. This is not a scientific claim but an opinionated claim.

I am arguing about the fact that you said I have no business to state the arguments on the given Web site are wrong if I don’t know them. I never said that they were wrong when I didn’t know the arguments. So why are you assuming beforehand that I would say that they are wrong? I hope that’s not a straw man argument. And I’ve already gone over why 1. Belief in God is not synonymous with the belief in the Christian God, hence the disregarding of the “creation” (according to Genesis) is moot. 2. You have yet to connect the idea that the former makes the latter unnecessary. As I have already said, many theistic evolutionists would disagree with you. It is perfectly reasonable that one can believe that God created the universe and allowed humans and other animals to evolve from how he has created them. 3. Will you not acknowledge the fact that the Christian concept of God is not the only concept of God and thus the Genesis account is not the only creation account?

No, my statement that if you merely believe what the site says is not “fact-free”. I have based this argument on the facts provided earlier in my posts. As I have said, evolution is not inconsistent with the belief in God as the site so dubiously and “fact-free” claims.

Please give me an example of how evolutionary argument demonises the story of creation, specifically as these certain creationists do by scapegoating it (that doesn’t include satire). In this case, you’re wrong to say that [these] creationists address the evolutionary arguments. The biological arguments for evolution do not support atheism, Nazism, communism, broken lives, broken families, or suicide. Not simply because I say so, which is a very arrogant statement on your part. If you disagree with a point I am making, feel free to point it out and ask me to explain it but refrain from being sarcastic. Evolution is not a political ideology. It is a scientific observation. The allegations that Adolf Hitler based his Holocaust ideology on evolution are examples of mere speculation. Adolf Hitler never said that he was influenced by the work of Charles Darwin or evolution for that matter. Hitler did however state several times that he was doing the Lord’s work in wiping out the “impure races” as described in “Mein Kampf”. So no, the site does not back up the claims that Hitler was influenced by evolution. It only cites another author speculating that Hitler’s conquest was influenced by evolution. The bottom line is that Hitler never proposed this as his influence. He however put in writing the influences of genocide that Christianity and God had on him.

Your explanation about the Amazonian scientist does not describe how the syntax implies different. A “scientific account” may at least imply either a scientist’s journal or a scientific record. So in the context of the evolutionary study provided earlier, “scientific account” and an “account that is scientifically accurate” do not imply anything different

So you say that you only accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke simply because you don’t know much about it. Well, remember what I said about how if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it. Even you have a similar statement in which you say that I would have no business to argue against something I know nothing about. So why are you just assuming the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke without even researching the Flat Earth Society? I have researched the society and it is certainly no joke. You are using a double-standard by dismissing the evidence for the Bible’s dubious claims as a “possibility that it is a joke”, but at the same time, you don’t accept the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals because unlike the Flat Earth Society, you have extensively researched the Bible. So by researching a topic that supports your belief and ostracising evidence against it, you are employing a double-standard.

If you think it is possible that he lied, do you not assume so? If you don’t then why would you even bring it up? The same principle applies to the previous argument. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim, yet you either assume or simply present the possibility that something is dubious without even researching it. If you indeed assume that Darwin lied (but you first must know of the subject before you make any assumptions), why don’t you accept the possibility that the Bible is just a collection of faerie tale annals (without using subjective support for this claim).

No, my question does not imply that the only parts of the text in archaic manuscripts that are accepted as fact are observed by scientists. In fact, I made the later statement that parts of many archaic manuscripts are used by historians. So that whole rant about how Caesar Augustus ruling Rome is not observed by scientific fact is moot. Like I have said before, many archaic texts have been useful in determining past history. Yes, the Bible is a very reliable document but so is the Nibelungenlied. Even other documents, especially such Middle Eastern flood epics besides that of Noah’s ark have been of use to archaeologists in the research of natural history (e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh). Now, if you know of the fulfilment of prophecies in the Bible, you would first have to verify them to give the Bible any more legitimacy over other archaic manuscripts.

Actually, there is no reason to think that the dragon legends have any basis in fact. Dinosaurs went extinct approximately sixty-five million years ago, long before anything closely humanoid appeared on Earth. Yet, you don't believe in in evolution and you think that Earth is only 6,000 years old. Well, I can prove your idea of Earth's age wrong in a plethora of different ways, but I'll just be specific with the dinosaurs. Archaeologists use stratification to determine the age of the soil in which the dinosaur was fossilised which is a process that involves dating the soil based on the half-lives of rock samples in which the fossils are found in. These different half-lives constitute the different eras of natural history. However, no dinosaur remains have ever been found in soil with a half-life past the beginning of the Tertiary era. This pattern of a mass lack of fossils of dinosaurs and several other animals that are now extinct constitutes the K-T boundary which points to a mass extinction event cause by hypothetically increased volcanic activity or a major meteor impact. As for humans, not only does Darwinism verify our evolution from a common primate ancestor, but geological dating additionally verifies that it was impossible for dinosaurs and humans to have lived in the same era.

But, I presume you don't believe in evolution, so I will expand on a different concept. In the Nibelungenlied, Siegfried is described as slaying the Dragon and bathing in his blood to become invincible from any sword or spear. However, a lime leaf fell on his back which gave him a weak spot. Sounds familiar? But if you believe that it is possible to bathe in a dinosaur's blood and become invincible, I will expand on a very similar story to Siegfried. The Iliad is also a very historically reliable account of the Trojan War. Yet, Achilles being the son of a sea nymph is usually omitted from history books. In this mythology, the sea nymph is considered to be a deity (as Greek mythology was a polytheistic religion). However, this bears a serious conflict with monotheistic religions such as Christianity which describes their being only one deity and Him only having one son. Since the two dogmas contradict each other, one can either assume that one of them is merely the stuff of legends, or both are (unless we are living in a parallel universe, of course). But, since you believe that the Christian dogma is the one that properly demonstrates the truth, you must first verify that the holy book central to Christianity (the Bible) is no more the stuff of legends as the mythological accounts of Greek polytheism.

So how do you "substantiate" the idea that Bible sceptics are merely playing with words? Do you have a link to such an article by New Scientist that says Earth is round? "Round" is not a generic term that applies to "spherical". They are two specifically different concepts. One demonstrates the shape of a two-dimensional figure and another demonstrates the shape of a three-dimensional figure. Going by the simple definition is not playing with words. However, manipulating the word's meaning ostensibly demonstrates playing with words.

So, what point are you missing exactly that the Church did not believe that the songs that demonstrated Earth to be stationary were metaphorical? The Church took the songs and prayers literally, so why should Genesis be any different? You say that not every song is scientifically literal. Yet, not every narrative is literal either (e.g. Genesis). So, why is Genesis any different from not being literal? So no, Bible sceptics do not "try" to find things wrong with the Bible. The fallacies are already there.

How do you verify (with scripture) that these laws in Leviticus are meant only for Jews? And how do you verify (with scripture) that they are no longer applicable? And most of all, how do you verify (with scripture) that the laws regarding homosexuality still apply? Also, you state that the principles behind homosexuality being an abomination apply through history. Can you verify this, too? Regarding how we were "designed" merely because humans can reproduce with sexual organs does not outline the principle that homosexuality is "immoral" or "unnatural". Sexual organs often not always used by heterosexual couples to suit this "design" of reproductivity and there are heterosexual couples who do commonly engage in evading this purported principle. Thus, making homosexuality irrelevant to the evasion of the principle. And remember that homosexuals may engage in life commitment too. So essentially, a homosexual couple forming a life commitment to each other is actually closer to these purported principles than that of a heterosexual couple that are not in a life commitment at all and using their sexual organs for an activity other than that of what they were originally "designed" to do.

So just because a term is coined in a point in time to refer to something in the past, does that mean that it cannot refer to that something in the past? The term "Prime Minister" wasn't used until the nineteenth century to refer to the statesmen who held the office in Britain. However, the Prime Ministers well into the eighteenth century are still known as "Prime Ministers". Oh, and if concepts must be no older as the terms that describe them, that must mean that Earth is not approximately 4.5 billion years old (as I believe) or approximately 6,000 years old (as you believe), but only about 600 years old since the term "Earth" was used c. 1400 to refer to the planet which we occupy. It is quite appropriate to apply the term to those who opposed Galileo. A fundamentalist (minuscule f) is defined as a strict adherent to any basic set of principles. As the Church's motivation was sticking to the Biblical account (specifically, that of the songs and prayers which describe Earth as being stationary), thus it is certainly appropriate to apply it to those who opposed Galileo. The Galileo affair didn't merely involve "churches" but the Church which was the institution that opposed Galileo's astronomical hypothesis and persecuted him for it. Now, you say that those who opposed Galileo were "like" the "liberal" churches who compromise with evolution. 1. How do you make such a connection? 2. Do you know the meaning of "liberal"? For the record, liberalism is not a doctrine that merely advocates secularism and not a term merely to describe those who believe in evolution and reject the theistic origins myth (creationism).

In the statement in which you quote me as saying that "there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin", you say that this "wrongly presupposes that the evolutionary view is scientific". Are you really saying that the evolutionary view is unscientific? Do you even know the definition of scientific? Evolution has been experimented and analysed by scientists while using the scientific method for years and concluded by scientists that evolution is a legitimate and accurate scientific field (just as relativity and gravity were experimented and analysed using the scientific method). If you are indeed boldly suggesting that evolution is unscientific, how do you verify such a claim?

I doubt that you have the presupposition to doubt that I do not know the meaning of "tolerance" because I do. Tolerance is the permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from one's own. It by no means implies that one may "oppose" the view. Despite me not being homosexual, I have a permissive attitude towards homosexuality, that doesn't suggest that I oppose homosexuality because I do not. Hence, I tolerate homosexuality. And no, I am not intolerant of creationism. I believe that one has the right to believe in creationism, despite me not believing in it. But aren't you intolerant of evolution?

In the article you provide, it says that the Church rejected Galileo's hypothesis (Copernican cosmology) for a hypothesis that was considered to be un-Christian (Aristotelian cosmology) and then goes on to say how the Church rejected those Biblical texts that contradicted Aristotle. Since the passages that contradicted Aristotle were disregarded by the Church, those same passages must have contradicted the passages that support the claim that Earth is stationary. Thus, the Church would have had the option of accepting the assumption that Earth is not stationary based on a cosmological view supported by the scripture (Copernican cosmology) or accepting the assumption that Earth is stationary based on a cosmological view also supported by the scripture (Aristotelian cosmology). So upon accepting either assumption, the Church would have been inevitably "accepting secularised views" because either one would have contradicted the scripture. Kilmarnock 02:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)