cwcrenshaw

you obviously don't know much about the various dating methods: C14 cannot be used to date organic artifacts at "millions of years"...the fossils themselves are not dated, they are assigned a date, based on an arbitrary geologic time scales actually I know quite a bit more than you think I do. Of course c14 dating can only be accurate up to 60,000 years...but again this is much more than the 6000 years you are claiming. Again, you are assuming that all these measurements are wrong.

I hate to tell you this, but no..it doesn't. There are mountains of evidence in support of evolution and only a few desperate fundamentalist organizations against it. You tell me who has more credibility.

You mentioned dinosaurs ("dead things") and carbon-dating...you mean to tell that you believe all dinosaurs were fossilized in under 6000 years, and that every single carbon-14 test ever conducted is flawed by millions and millions of years? Boy, that is some faith.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Oh i'm not even going to touch that one. Way too easy.

verdict of science? since when have you cared about that?

I think he's simply remarking on the imperfection man brings into any situation he is involved in, even when that has to do with the Bible. And yes a Christian can say that...no fundamentalist can say that.

You made me laugh out loud at work..well done sir.

I think you are wrong, but we will have to agree to disagree.

yes, you are, and you clearly have an axe to grind...take it elsewhere, isn't there an atheist.com? no axe to grind. When you make false statements about the constitution be prepared to be called on it. Your comments are very childish.

correct, but liberals attempt to twist the first amendment into excluding religion...that was never the intent no contradiction, you're simply confused I am not the one who's confused about this. I will spell it out very simply for you: The Government doesn't have any authority over religious things...this means that they are REQUIRED to exclude religion. It's really not that difficult.

You're the one who posted about the seperation of church and state. I simply responded.

you've contradicted yourself in a single post, not an easy feat. Religious freedom means freedom for anyone to believe what they want....even if that means not believing. Religious freedom does not mean you have the freedom of religion as long you have religion. The part you bolded in the article is exactly right, the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction in matters of religion...hence the seperation of church and state.

its only in the very first article of the very first amendment to the constitution. what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you not understand? It is obvious that the forefathers intended a seperation between church and state. They wanted them to be mutually exclusive. How you do not understand that is beyond me.

constitution? lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." that is of course if you need further explanation of article 1 of the bill of rights..which i find to be pretty self-explanatory: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I completely agree

Seconded.

Peace CWCrenshaw -- No doubt you have heard this analogy before, but it is still a response to your challenge, none-the-less. I have a brother. He has a name. I know my brother becuase I have talked with him, spent time with him, touched him, heard him, seen him, even smelled him! I have experienced him with all my senses and therefore I know him to exist, without doubt, just as you encourage others to do. Yet you do not know my brother. If I told you about him, you would not have my personal experience of observation and interaction with him. You only have the choice to believe me or not believe me when I tell you he exists. Until you meet him for yourself. Then you too, will know him by your senses, by observation, and by reason. The same is true with God. I cannot prove to you by my own personal interaction with Him that He is real. But if you choose, you can know Him just the way you describe - think in terms of what you can see and touch. Then you too, can KNOW Him. shlomo Yes I have heard that before and it is a good point. I agree you that the same can be said about God, as it can be said about anything. But I must say that I would have a much easier time believing that your brother exists than an invisible sky god who creates and controls everything. I hate to be so blunt about it but some situations are much easier to believe than others.

that preccupation leads to death...why are you on this forum? seriously... 2 Corinthians 4 It is written: "I believed; therefore I have spoken."With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence. All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God. Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. Can I offer some advise? When debating someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, try to avoid making a point using the Bible...it's not too convincing. Why am I on this forum? Because many people have questions about/for atheists on this board...I want to make sure they are answered correctly and help correct false stereotypes. I must ask then, why are you on this board? To preach to people who already believe in the same relgion as you do? How Exciting that must be.

the vast majority of people reject God, reject the gospel, and are on the road to hell...what's your point? you're missing the big picture...get your eyes off the floor, think in terms of eternal, spiritual issues...this life is a vapor, this world will pass away...your world is tiny My eyes are wide open and I take the entire universe into account when establishing my beliefs about existence...I would encourage you to get your eyes off of the bronze-aged text and take a look around you....think in terms of what you can see and touch.

Darwin sparked a massive amount of public interest, both good and bad, with his book... I refer you to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_Darwin's_theory That's because "most people" aren't educated enough to understand the complexity that goes into saying something like "microbes to man"...of course it sounds absurd to a regular person. You will find that out of those who are infact educated enough to understand what they are talking about, that the vast, vast majority support Darwinism. Funny you should use the word "preaching" though because it has been the church who began the ad hominem attacks. You certainly sound objective about the matter when you call him a "bitter old hermit". No I haven't visited the museum and I don't intend to. I have visited their website and seen numerous reviews and photos and I wouldn't pay the price of admission because I don't want one red cent of mine going to support such blatant lies.

I have to take issue with your statements. First, Darwin's ideas didn't slowly permeate, they shook the scientific and religious communities to their core and the church was quick to demonize him. Secondly, "the purpose of the museum is to present a Biblical alternative"...you act as if Darwin came first and the Bible was just discovered. The fact is that the museum offers nothing more than religious propaganda based on nothing more than vague and biased pseudo-science. Dinosaurs with saddles on...seriously?

You did not address why he allows it happen though. You will probably throw the old "its God's plan, we can't possibly understand God's plan" argument at me. But what kind of plan includes such atrocities? What good could possibly come of it? Again, it raises questions of his omnipotence and his claim to be all-loving. You missed the point completely. How can you tell what the "REAL" word of God is if it has been rewritten several times by man? It doesn't matter if I were the one to rewrite it or some power-hungry man who happened to be ordained rewrote it....it is still man tampering with the supposed word of God. Ever heard of Constantine or the Council of Nicaea? No, this shows a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Who would typically be the weakest members of a tribe? Women and children. Sure the strongest (men) would kill off whoever was weaker than them but this would not (like i said) allow the group to exist for very long. Suppose he didnt kill the women and children and only killed the males that threatened him. Fine, but this means that eventually all the males members of the tribe would probably be his direct decendents...would they then kill off eachother for dominance? Eventually one or the other has to win out. They either kill eachother into non-existence, or figure out that killing does not help their chances for survival. You have it backwards, it is not the presence of cultures that allow murder, etc that discredits the morality claims of christianity... it is the fact that (as you said) the vast majority of cultures do not find these activities permissable. The fact that almost all cultures have the same basic morals as christians, but may not be christian, shows that christianity is not necessary for morality. In the few cultures you do find that murder, etc is allowed, it is usually due to sectarian violence or some crazy religious dogma... "(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Steven Weinberg I go back to what I said earlier about basing my beliefs about the world on what I see, not what I wish to see. We tend to see science as a much better argument to "God did it" and as science progresses and our understanding of how the universe operates becomes more clear...the belief in a supernatural creator becomes more and more optional. We don't use God to explain why things fall to earth anymore, for example....we call it gravity now. The point is, as science advances there becomes less of a gap in our understanding that we humans feel the need to explain by a god. This is not a melancholy outlook, this is a realistic outlook. So your guessing that he created us because he was lonely. Talk about a melancholy outlook. I always love the "God is beyond human comprehension" argument too. If that was the case, how can religious people claim to know what God wants? "X is ok, but Y isnt." "God wanted this to happen for me" "God kept me out of the way of that stray truck"...if you can't explain why God is not benevolent enough to keep kids from dying, then you can't hope to explain everyday happenings.

Well Damo1, I'm glad to hear that you are a tolerant person who is willing to hear the other side of things. Unfortunately there aren't alot of people who are very tolerant of atheists here in the southern part of the United States. For example, there are members of my family who still don't know that I'm an atheist because I fear they will break communication with me and I don't want that to happen. I dare not mention it to some co-workers either. Anyway, I don't understand why the op left a "survey" for atheists on a christian board either, but seeing as I am probably one of the few on here, I figured I ought to respond. Anyway I'm glad to know that you are tolerant and easy-going, I hope that I encounter more christians like you.