Was God an astronaut?

[JohnW]

Asside from the questions regarding which religion you follow, I'll ask once more, what do you do for a day job Blower...

[CliveH]

I await the answers with interest, but it will probably be the last post of his on this subject that I can be bothered to read...

[Turbo Joe]

What kind of rubbish are you talking Clive, "I'm right your wrong"? I can back my talk, I'll debate you publically if you want to so badly stand behind such a ridiculous, dumb and dangerous theory, hypothosis and religion. Spontaneous generation, life coming from none living material , give me a break. We have never seen that happen, ever, what makes you think it could happen long ago and far away?

By the way evolution is not science, its a fairytale religion. If I said a frog could turn into a prince, you would laugh in my face and tell me to stop being so stupid. Yet the theory of evolution teaches just that with a little magic ingredient called TIME. Throw millions and billions of years into the equation and the evolutionist all of a sudden thinks the theory is more viable, reasonable and realistic.
You can even call your boy S4-Tan to make it 2 against 1, in fact call anyone else who wants to join your evolutionist boat, we can even make it 10 against 1. I'll tear the face off any so called "evidence" you claim to have. Call for a public debate and gather your crew, you'll still get creamed and embarassed.

[Turbo Joe]

What makes me laugh is top boy evolutionists such as Niles Eldridge, Colin Patterson, Stephen J Gould and many more are admitting and have been admitting for years that there is no evidence for the theory and that it has to be taken on by FAITH. Its only the lower level amateurs such as yourself, the antichrist boy and the rest of your supporters that are finding it hard to let go of simply because you need some sort of religion that fits in with your lifestyle and that gives you freedom from God and his rules. Therefore this dumb religion must be held up at all costs. Life coming from prebiotic soup in the oceans???Please!!

I'll swiftly remind you that just 1, just 1 problem is enough to bring the whole theory into question.

[jeffw]

Found you.....You are must be a member of Answers in Genesis...http://www.answersingenesis.org/. You litterally believe in the book of Genesis.

This is the reference to the Dawkin interview....

In 1998, Answers in Genesis filmed an interview with Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist and Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Segments of the interview were included on a video From a Frog to a Prince, distributed by Answers in Genesis. A clip of the interview, which can be viewed at an Answers in Genesis web page,[85] appears to show Dawkins nonplussed and pausing for 11 seconds when asked by the interviewer to "name one example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome". The video then shows Dawkins apparently giving a long, convoluted answer that fails to answer the question.

This is discussed in Chapter two, Essay three of A Devil's Chaplain, a collection of selected essays by Richard Dawkins. The book describes the event as follows:

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realizing that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to ‘give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome’. It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was the point I tumbled to the fact that I been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview, because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe their question cannot be answered![86]

In an article by the Australian Skeptics,[87] it was alleged that the film was carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to adequately answer the question and that the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset). Dawkins reported to the Australian Skeptics that the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, it was claimed that the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.

Answers in Genesis has responded in an article: Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?[88] According to their account, Dawkins had been made aware of the interviewer's creationist sympathies. They further claim that the raw footage shows that Dawkins, after pausing for a long time, asked that the recording company stop recording the video. They did this but kept the audio running in order to preserve an uncut original, which has now been released to the public. Dawkins was asked the same question later after the video recording had resumed. The "Skeptics choke on Frog" video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity.

Further info on this cult at wikipedia.

[JohnW]

Asside from the questions regarding which religion you follow, I'll ask once more, what do you do for a day job Blower...

and once more...

Is it just me, or does it seem strange that the discussion has now been averted away from god/allah/etc to evolution.

just as it is (imo) pretty much impossible to prove beyond doubt how the earth and planets were formed, it is also impossible to prove that god exists /existed. There are differing levels of 'evidence' for both, but to prove beyond doubt using science, it would be necessary to reproduce the results. If you cannot prove it, you are only speculating based on a hypothesis. If there are a number of hypotheses, then these are generally researched and the most likely one chosen. It doesn't make it right, but based on the facts at that time it is the best guess. This is where we are with formation of the solar system, and evolution.

One point here blower. You liken time to magic. Well actually, breeding of any living being shows evolution. Each generation takes a selection of genes from the previous generation, and is modified as a result. This is not magic, it is time.
If you cross breed the same happens, and you result with the dominent genes steering the path. Various animals show how they have evolved and adapted to their surroundings. The similarities to other animals genes show there are likely (read that again - likely...) to be a progression.
Look at frogs and butterflies. They don't start out that way ,but evolve during their life span. This shows that it ought to be possile for living beings to do the same over generations.

If science is not to be used but reference books then unfortunately History has proven that man has a habit of altering the recorded facts to suit his needs. Not too long ago history in German schools did not mention the holocaust, and the americans are notorious for making claims that differ from other countries. I see the various books of the bible in the same manner. Essentially different books supposedly written by different people, and all with slightly different recollections. Now add time and multiple translations, plus a small amount of editing to remove items which are not seen as pc at that time, and you have, unfortunately a good story, but a long way from what I'd consider fact.

I respect anyone who has a faith to follow, but I do not appreciate the attitude that those who beleive have to be right because they've seen the light, and more importantly impose their views on others.
A little story.
When we wanted to get married my local church (one which I attended for over 20 years) would not marrry us because my wife has been married before. The CofE church in the next village would, but we could not get married there as it was not either of our parishes. We did get married, but not in a CofE church.
So what makes this one vicars views correct and the other ones not?
It can only be personal opinion, and if it isn't then the vicars are selectively choosing which parts of the faith to follow.

I've concluded Blower that you don't want to get a resolution to this discussion, but rather looking for another topic to discuss to avert the questions.

[S4TAN]

the antichrist boy ... call your boy S4-Tan

<the following is to be sung in a snarling, sneering voice>

"I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Dont know what I want but I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passer by
cos i - I wanna be
Anarchy !
Get pissed - Destroy!"



"Answers in Genesis" indeed What a <beep> joke!

Life coming from prebiotic soup in the oceans???Please!!

Yeah - 'cos that's just soooo ridiculous compared to some uber-dude floating around creating a planet in 6 days and placing a fully formed human male in a garden, then snapping a rib off the poor sod and making a woman out of it ...

Really "B-lower" - there simply aren't enough rolling-eyes icons to express my contempt for this criminally backwards and medieval world-view of yours .... but here's a few to be getting on with:

[rolskii]

What kind of rubbish are you talking ,
By the way evolution is not science, its a fairytale religion.
Yet the theory of evolution teaches just that with a little magic ingredient called TIME. Throw millions and billions of years into the equation and the evolutionist all of a sudden thinks the theory is more viable, reasonable and realistic.

What type of rubbish are you TALKING Blower ..... did you or did you not state in 1 of yr posts that the universe is mearly 6-10,000yrs old ....

I have consistently noted that u are a hypocrit .... say 1 and next post say the opposite .... (example above)
Just prove that there is a GOD ..... I know u cant ..... if there was - all the fighting and troubles in the world would stop ... not commence(as u seem to indicate)
Its all propoganda bullshit ..... that the blind and unknowing see and adhere to ...
Give us something tangeable to go with, that is not pre-dated or speculation .... the only thing u got in your life is TIME .....
hurry an get a life as its runnning past u in a different universe .... oh didnt someone tell you ..... there is other life form out there ......

[S4TAN]

Holy <beep>! (pun totally intended ) - I've just been on the Answers in Genesis web-site - look what I found (this is from their "founder" - a total loon called Ken Ham):

"Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? ‘Absolutely not!’

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Answers magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don’t believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called ‘science’ that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

When someone says to me, ‘Oh, so you’re one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,’ I reply, ‘Actually, I’m a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!’ (which means I’m a young-Earth creationist!).

Here’s what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah’s day).

Also, the word for ‘day’ in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information].

Thus, as a ‘revelationist,’ I let God’s Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible’s genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man’s ideas about the age of the universe."

I've highlighted in bold-type the salient points - these points clearly illustrate why common-sense will never prevail with people like Ken Ham and Blower. Read it and draw your own conclusions ...

[GardinerG]

I'll swiftly remind you that just 1, just 1 problem is enough to bring the whole theory into question.

What, you mean just like you can't prove the existence of "god"?

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively. Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination[citation needed], in the sense that the fundamental principals of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas.

[JohnW]

Jees, so :
"I beleive in this old book, and unfortunately it contradicts other findings in the world, despite the fact it was written way before they were discovered. That must mean these other findings have to be wrong, or invented to undermine my good book. Oh okay, as long as the book says its so..."


Incidentally, the bible was written at a time that the world still thought the earth was flat.
That has been proven by science to be wrong. http://www.timelinescience.org/resource ... t/flat.htm
Why is it not therefore possible to accept other things in the world/universe are different from that described in the book...

[Turbo Joe]

Ok pundits, lets deal with one topic at a time. Lets start with the big bang. Since you all wish to remain willingly ignorant(in the greek "dumb on purpose") will somebody please explain where the matter came from and where the energy came from for this big bang. I've got to here this.

[Turbo Joe]

Found you.....You are must be a member of Answers in Genesis...http://www.answersingenesis.org/. You litterally believe in the book of Genesis.

This is the reference to the Dawkin interview....

In 1998, Answers in Genesis filmed an interview with Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist and Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Segments of the interview were included on a video From a Frog to a Prince, distributed by Answers in Genesis. A clip of the interview, which can be viewed at an Answers in Genesis web page,[85] appears to show Dawkins nonplussed and pausing for 11 seconds when asked by the interviewer to "name one example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome". The video then shows Dawkins apparently giving a long, convoluted answer that fails to answer the question.

This is discussed in Chapter two, Essay three of A Devil's Chaplain, a collection of selected essays by Richard Dawkins. The book describes the event as follows:

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realizing that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to ‘give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome’. It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was the point I tumbled to the fact that I been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview, because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe their question cannot be answered![86]

In an article by the Australian Skeptics,[87] it was alleged that the film was carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to adequately answer the question and that the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset). Dawkins reported to the Australian Skeptics that the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, it was claimed that the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.

Answers in Genesis has responded in an article: Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?[88] According to their account, Dawkins had been made aware of the interviewer's creationist sympathies. They further claim that the raw footage shows that Dawkins, after pausing for a long time, asked that the recording company stop recording the video. They did this but kept the audio running in order to preserve an uncut original, which has now been released to the public. Dawkins was asked the same question later after the video recording had resumed. The "Skeptics choke on Frog" video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity.

Further info on this cult at wikipedia.

I'm not dealing with what creationists are saying, I'm dealing with what your own evo boys are admitting about their religion. Oh Jeff, will you be an ignorant die hard like the rest of these guys and walk into the fire of oblivion? You cannot revive a rigomortis Jeff, the theory is dead, its only surviving on tax money, don't be the last one off the boat.

[S4TAN]

Before we do the big-bang why don't you just answer some, or even one, of the many points above?

Start with my point about God existing outside of space-time, and therefore knew man would sin before even creating him (as God would clearly know mans entire future history because God sees all of time at once), but went ahead and made him anyway ... why did God create a flawed sinning creature? Just to have fun punishing him?

Answer that and I'll deal with your big-bang question.

[Turbo Joe]

Jees, so :
"I beleive in this old book, and unfortunately it contradicts other findings in the world, despite the fact it was written way before they were discovered. That must mean these other findings have to be wrong, or invented to undermine my good book. Oh okay, as long as the book says its so..."


Incidentally, the bible was written at a time that the world still thought the earth was flat.
That has been proven by science to be wrong. http://www.timelinescience.org/resource ... t/flat.htm
Why is it not therefore possible to accept other things in the world/universe are different from that described in the book...

Johnny, John, you assume that evolution is part of science and it is not, so yes the bible will conflict with the evo theory because evolution is NOT SCIENCE. Your own evo boys have been admitting this for a long time, evolution just like creation must be taken on by faith. Sir Authur Keith wrote in the foreward to Darwin's book The Origin Of Species the following:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We only believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable".

Now there is an honest bloke, evolutionists don't even wnat to think about the possibility of there being a creator, its got nothing to do with so called "evidence".

Sir Julian Huxley was even more honest when he made this statement:

" I suppose the reason why we leapt at The Origin Of Species is that the idea of God interfered with our sexual morays".

That is the cruncher right there, we don't want God dictating to us that we cannot lust after women, have sex before marriage and commit adultery. As I said before, the only reason why you and the rest of your evo chums are so zealous is because you have a lifestyle to uphold you know God would not approve of, therefore you must get rid of God and you religion called evolution gives you the step up you so desperately clamber for.