is there a God?

[cs3602001]

This is a good point; now look at the flip side--why would a 2000 year old book be considered so relevant by so many?

I think there are many relevant points in there, basic morals remain the same, but the manner in which they are communicated to, for example, the "youth of today", let's say in Manchester, my home town is 2000 years out with language, Releigious Education Classes are pretty much found to be very boring and mostly ignored by a lot of youngsters. I had friends at the local Catholic Schools too and they found nothign more boring than RE Class.

When it comes to reading the Bible, it is difficult for the person who is curious to know where to start. I have always thought that the book of John is the best place for someone to start. It is easy to read (even in the Greek, it is simple), there are no genealogies, no long lists of laws or regulations, and much of it is narrative or talking...mostly easy to follow. For most people, if you read the first several chapters and don't feel as though you are being spoken to, then you might as well put it down.

I like Matthew and it is really the only thing that I find makes good common sense to me and is clear and easy to understand, a simple set of guidelines to follow

When you look inside to find God, you are just making God in your own image; the end result is self-worship. As the Bible says, There is a way that seems right to a man, but the logical end of that is death

You are assuming I look inside myself to find God?

I do not and never will claim to understand God, let alone create an image of him, that is beyond my comprehension.

I pray, the content of my prayers are not for discussion on a public website, but I have taken a lot of guidence from the book I have previously mentioned.

You seem to make some MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS, regarding the way I dso things, the LAST PLACE ON EARTH for me to look for God would be inside, all I woudl find there is mandess and insanity!!!!!!!

[scutfargus]

I'm sure it's safe to say that not many people here care to hear your over-zealous christian diatribes. Go peddle that garbage somewhere else. The world is in its current situation because of religious fruit-cakes such as yourself and the idiot in the whitehoue.

This is called scapegoating. It was done by Hitler in the 30's; he blamed the Jews for everything.

More people have been killed in the name of your supposed god than all of the wars combined...that in itself is reason enough to dislike you! Your continued ranting about the supposed existence of a god is just icing on the cake! LMAO

Not that I doubt you, but are you going to provide some statistics here?

[cs3602001]

whether or not there is a God, there is a craig.

i've seen him, but i can't prove it. all i have is blurry photos, the kind they have of loch ness monster or bigfoot or ufos... so you will all just have to accept that craig exists.

All those jolly men who kiss in public will refute this, no doubt.

or at least want to. hmmmm.... it's almost impossible to prove something does not exist.

I exist...just maybe not always in the 3rd Dimension........your "reality" so to speak.....

The form I take may change but my core being remains the same...

:twisted:

[scutfargus]

This is a good point; now look at the flip side--why would a 2000 year old book be considered so relevant by so many?

I think there are many relevant points in there, basic morals remain the same, but the manner in which they are communicated to, for example, the "youth of today", let's say in Manchester, my home town is 2000 years out with language, Releigious Education Classes are pretty much found to be very boring and mostly ignored by a lot of youngsters. I had friends at the local Catholic Schools too and they found nothign more boring than RE Class.

We are seeing the same thing here; there are exceptions of course, but for the most part, our youth in the US have not investigated Christ, but reject Him for the same reasons expressed in this thread. In the next 20-30 years, I predict great changes in the US.

When it comes to reading the Bible, it is difficult for the person who is curious to know where to start. I have always thought that the book of John is the best place for someone to start. It is easy to read (even in the Greek, it is simple), there are no genealogies, no long lists of laws or regulations, and much of it is narrative or talking...mostly easy to follow. For most people, if you read the first several chapters and don't feel as though you are being spoken to, then you might as well put it down.

I like Matthew and it is really the only thing that I find makes good common sense to me and is clear and easy to understand, a simple set of guidelines to follow

You seem to have some background or some connection with Judaism (perhaps that one association that you mentioned; or maybe there is more than that?). Matthew, although he was a tax collector, and disliked (or, at least, looked down upon) by his fellow Jews, knew the Old Testament and noted the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy more than the other 3 gospel writers.

When you look inside to find God, you are just making God in your own image; the end result is self-worship. As the Bible says, There is a way that seems right to a man, but the logical end of that is death

You are assuming I look inside myself to find God?

I do not and never will claim to understand God, let alone create an image of him, that is beyond my comprehension.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you said? You don't have hear what you said prior to my comment, but my apologies if I mistquoted or misunderstood you here.

I pray, the content of my prayers are not for discussion on a public website, but I have taken a lot of guidence from the book I have previously mentioned.

You seem to make some MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS, regarding the way I dso things, the LAST PLACE ON EARTH for me to look for God would be inside, all I woudl find there is mandess and insanity!!!!!!!

Ditto. Good that we can agree now and again. I'll have to look back on that previous post of yours and see where I got that idea.

[cs3602001]

Looking inside Craigs head!!!! now there is something that could make me lose sleep for a long time!! hehehe....j/k

The trick is getting inside it....and then actually trying to find something!!!!

[scutfargus]

Never let it be said that God does not have a sense of irony:

"The skeptic Voltaire said the Bible and Christianity would perish within fifty years but he died and the Bible survives. After his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his printing press and his house to produce Bibles."

I did take this from a website:

http://www.millersvillechurch.com/Bible%20(northrop).htm

(you'll have to cut and paste that link if you want to follow it out)

Also, I have mentioned Will Durant before, a humanist (according to a website) and a person who did not believe in miracles, took both the Old and New Testaments as being extremely accurate history (apart from the miracles). He is one of the foremost ancient historians, writing 11 volumes on ancient history (well, up to Napoleon).

As to the credibility of the New Testament Will Durant uses volume three of his massive Story of Civilization series. He begins with background on Christ Himself after chapter 25 deals with the long struggle of Rome in maintaining "pax" in Judea. He includes a chronological table covering the birth of Christ in 4 B.C. dating His crucifixion in A.D. 30. Durant makes an excellent case for the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Christ. He quotes passages from ancient non-Christian historians who corroborate various aspects of Christ's life. Durant quotes Christ passages even in the Talmud. Other important sources Durant quotes are Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus. Durant wrote, "we may conclude, with the brilliant but judicious Schweitzer, that the Gospel of Mark is in essentials "genuine history." Story of Civilization, Simon and Schuster, Will Durant, vol. 3, p. 556 Speaking of all four authors of the Gospels, Durant wrote, "the evangelists shared with Cicero, Sallust, and Tacitus the conception of history as a vehicle for moral ideas." ibid., p. 557 Durant believes their message has integrity because each author and leader in the primitive church was also self demeaning sharing passages that a "mere inventor would have concealed." ibid. Durant says, "no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels."

This was also a quote from a website:

http://churches.net/churches/utmiss/Hisword/Hisword7.html#WILL%20DURANT%20AND%20THE%20BIBLE

[SgtPepper]

Never let it be said that God does not have a sense of irony:

"The skeptic Voltaire said the Bible and Christianity would perish within fifty years but he died and the Bible survives. After his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his printing press and his house to produce Bibles."

I did take this from a website:

http://www.millersvillechurch.com/Bible%20(northrop).htm

(you'll have to cut and paste that link if you want to follow it out)

All of which prove nothing!

The reason thee bible has been so succesful is because it got in at the ground floor. Namely when human beings as a society [or group of] everywhere on the planet were still in their infancy.

Knowledge, Literacy, Education, Science were all very badly served 2000 years ago. People and cutures were open to all sort of weird and nonsensical ideas and concepts.

Amusingly people all thought the world was flat! up until quite recently. The BIbile course never mentions that little detail and instead has some fairytales about adam and eve and an assortment of other fantastic tales thrown in too.

Fact is that as with any cult or fashion even once it takes a grip after a certain period of time it just becomes intrinsic to the culture, potatoes were not a European thing yet are often associated with ireland [the great famine being a strong reference point] and now potatoes are huge everywhere! SIr walter Ralegh being the guy who brought this and tobbacco back from his exploits abroad. Coffee came from the east mand now is a symbol and iconic part of western culture, even more so in the US where it triumphs over TEA which is the more popular in the UK and Ireland

Your great bible like with so many other commodities and cultural baggage at a very early stage got in and got a huge market share which it was able to build up and consolidate through the dominance of the European [later American] power and influence in the world often through unfair practices [for one thing mad bible bashers like you going into othe lands that had other beliefs and trying to convert disadvantaged peoples- oftn with much less educaqtion or opportunities--------missionarys]

. The bottom line is that the cult of chritianity went with all the conquests of the european powers over a long period of time and as with all empires religion was and is a constant in maintaining order and stablity

which is also why so many of the worlds conflicts are tied in with religious factions fighting each other, of course humans do not need rligion alone to have wars as they can find all manner of means to fight each other over land, wealth, resources etc

Nazi Germany V Soviet Union being a useful example.

Put simply if christianity was being intoduced to the world in this day and age for the first time it would never get a root in main stream society anywhere. In afct it would be laughed off the stage! Logically speaking it would have been so much more convenient for a mad cult to taake hold when we didnt have mobile phones, the internet, satalite tv and communications etc etc pity eh?

would be fun spreading the word for the first time through txting

People now have so much more knowledge and information/education that the bible and it's main cult of chrtianity are laughable and would never be taken seriously. The bible has so little relevance to so few people lives that it is funny to see someone who actually think it matters one bit. No coincidence that it more often than not the poorer and less educated who clutch to the superstitiouis nonsense offered by you and your kind.

The US dollar has far more influence that Jesus ever had! But it too will decline eventually and be replaced with something else meanwhile the influenc of the bible and other superstitions will decline in direct proportion to the level of education.litracy,wealth,opportunity created/developed over time.

Peddaling your cult and old book of legends is a wasted energy that betrays much of the value of the ideals of Jesus and his mates anyway.

Better to go out into the world and do good deeds through your actions that tpo get caught up in the sort of nonsense you are going on with here.

[scutfargus]

Amusingly people all thought the world was flat! up until quite recently. The BIbile course never mentions that little detail and instead has some fairytales about adam and eve and an assortment of other fantastic tales thrown in too.

I've posted on this very thing before, but please, those who know, allow me to re-explain this (with additional verses):

Job 26:10: He [God] has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness.

Job, btw, is the second oldest book in the Bible (parts of Genesis are older). There is disagreement about when Job wrote, but my guess is around 3000 BC (give or take 500 years).

Proverbs 8:27: I [knowledge] was there when He [God] established the heavens and when He [God] decreed the circle upon the face of the deep [i.e., ocean].

This comes from Solomon, written about 950 BC.

Isa. 40:22: It is He [God] Who sits above the sphere [or, circle] of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; [it is He] Who stretches out the heavens like a thin, fine cloth and spreads them out [around?] [or, covers completely] like a tent to dwell in.

Isaiah wrote about 700 BC; we have manuscripts written by Isaiah which go back to about 100 BC. Isaiah is one of the prophets who wrote about Jesus Christ, by the way. Notice that Isaiah speaks about the atmosphere around the earth as well? When did the god science discover atmosphere, Sgt?

Let me throw in a bonus verse from Job--Job 26:7: He stretches the northern skies over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

Now the rest of the ancient world, to some degree, was aware the the earth was round. The Greeks knew the circumference of the earth (this would have been circa 300BC), and I have shown my Freshmen geometry students how they calculated that (I guess your geometry teacher did not get around to that?). I have to, in all honesty, point out that the Greeks were not 100% accurate. I forget how far they were off...under 5% I think. Someone posted before on the fact that they did not get the circumference exactly right.

[scutfargus]

Never let it be said that God does not have a sense of irony:

"The skeptic Voltaire said the Bible and Christianity would perish within fifty years but he died and the Bible survives. After his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his printing press and his house to produce Bibles."

I did take this from a website:

http://www.millersvillechurch.com/Bible%20(northrop).htm

(you'll have to cut and paste that link if you want to follow it out)

The reason thee bible has been so succesful is because it got in at the ground floor. Namely when human beings as a society [or group of] everywhere on the planet were still in their infancy.

Knowledge, Literacy, Education, Science were all very badly served 2000 years ago. People and cutures were open to all sort of weird and nonsensical ideas and concepts.

Interesting concept, but there were tremendous libraries in the ancient world. Alexandria is reknown for its library. There were a great many religions which came in throughout time.

When it comes to the accuracy of the New Testament as history, I guess you ignored...

As to the credibility of the New Testament Will Durant uses volume three of his massive Story of Civilization series. He begins with background on Christ Himself after chapter 25 deals with the long struggle of Rome in maintaining "pax" in Judea. He includes a chronological table covering the birth of Christ in 4 B.C. dating His crucifixion in A.D. 30. Durant makes an excellent case for the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Christ. He quotes passages from ancient non-Christian historians who corroborate various aspects of Christ's life. Durant quotes Christ passages even in the Talmud. Other important sources Durant quotes are Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus. Durant wrote, "we may conclude, with the brilliant but judicious Schweitzer, that the Gospel of Mark is in essentials "genuine history." Story of Civilization, Simon and Schuster, Will Durant, vol. 3, p. 556 Speaking of all four authors of the Gospels, Durant wrote, "the evangelists shared with Cicero, Sallust, and Tacitus the conception of history as a vehicle for moral ideas." ibid., p. 557 Durant believes their message has integrity because each author and leader in the primitive church was also self demeaning sharing passages that a "mere inventor would have concealed." ibid. Durant says, "no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels." ibid

Will Durant was a great ancient historian...perhaps the greatest. He has never stated the kinds of views you state, even though he deals with religion in his thousands of pages on ancient history. I guess you know better than Will?

Your great bible like with so many other commodities and cultural baggage at a very early stage got in and got a huge market share which it was able to build up and consolidate through the dominance of the European [later American] power and influence in the world often through unfair practices [for one thing mad bible bashers like you going into othe lands that had other beliefs and trying to convert disadvantaged peoples- oftn with much less educaqtion or opportunities--------missionarys]

You seem to gloss over the fact that hundreds of thousands of educated people choose God's Word. I was not brought up as a Christian. I was exposed to several different religions when young. I made a conscious choice years after I attended any church. And I do have a reasonable intellect.

And if all it takes is disadvantaged people for missionaries to prey upon, why do some countries respond in droves and others not at all? You ignore the concept of volition; you ignore the fact that very educated people believe in Jesus Christ and trust the Bible; and you ignore the fact that very uneducated people reject Jesus Christ and the Bible. Sgt. Pepper, you need to leave history to someone who has more than theories, and stick with what you are good at, quoting lyrics from songs from the 60's. In the future, I am sure even in the US, we will see history rewritten (we are getting a lot of that now to some degree), but it is not here yet, and you have no foundation for your view of history other than your personal prejudices.

. The bottom line is that the cult of chritianity went with all the conquests of the european powers over a long period of time and as with all empires religion was and is a constant in maintaining order and stablity

Christianity, instead of being spread from a central point to surrounding areas, or by conquering this land or that, takes a great foothold in specific countries over time...Rome, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, England, the US...in fact, if you follow the nations which tend to become very prosperous you will find a close corolation to Christianity taking hold in that nation at that time. When you find nations falling from this grace, there is also a turning away from Christianity to religion (like Romanism).

which is also why so many of the worlds conflicts are tied in with religious factions fighting each other, of course humans do not need rligion alone to have wars as they can find all manner of means to fight each other over land, wealth, resources etc

Nazi Germany V Soviet Union being a useful example.

Please expand on this point, if you would. Try to include a fact or two when you do.

Put simply if christianity was being intoduced to the world in this day and age for the first time it would never get a root in main stream society anywhere. In afct it would be laughed off the stage! Logically speaking it would have been so much more convenient for a mad cult to taake hold when we didnt have mobile phones, the internet, satalite tv and communications etc etc pity eh?

As far as I personally am concerned, this is the day and age when Christianity was introduced to me. Again, I was not raised a Christian. No one can be raised a believer. It is a choice every person must make.

You used the phrase "laughed off the stage." When was the last time you saw Billy Graham laughed off the stage?

People now have so much more knowledge and information/education that the bible and it's main cult of chrtianity are laughable and would never be taken seriously. The bible has so little relevance to so few people lives that it is funny to see someone who actually think it matters one bit. No coincidence that it more often than not the poorer and less educated who clutch to the superstitiouis nonsense offered by you and your kind.

Again, your philosophy dictates your reality. Poor people believe in Jesus Christ and rich people believe in Jesus Christ. Educated and uneducated alike believe in Jesus Christ. You have a lot of fervor and heart in what you say, but you seem to be missing...hmmm, what is the word I am looking for?...hmmm...facts?

[Superdave]

Well said Sgt. Agree wholeheartedly!

[scutfargus]

Well said Sgt. Agree wholeheartedly!

Did you put on your cheerleading outfit before posting? Why don't you contribute more than "Well said..." when in fact, it was not well-said, but a diatribe of personal prejudices riddled with inaccuracies.

[Superdave]

Well Scut, if I "agree wholeheartedly" wouldn't anything I contributed just be redundant? Redundancy, and diatribes I might add, is your area of expertise. "Personal prejudices"? I would agree he has personal bias but this whole thread is filled with personal bias, including yours. If you would equate that to personal prejudice then so be it. But there is no outright belligerent prejudice there. He has simply made an argument against Christianity. You have taken it personally. I admire your devotion to your religion but allow somebody else to have an opinion and open your mind to some non-biblical thought.

I also agree with cs, if I am understanding him correctly. The more you spout bible quotations, the less support you garner.

[scutfargus]

Well Scut, if I "agree wholeheartedly" wouldn't anything I contributed just be redundant? Redundancy, and diatribes I might add, is your area of expertise. "Personal prejudices"? I would agree he has personal bias but this whole thread is filled with personal bias, including yours. If you would equate that to personal prejudice then so be it. But there is no outright belligerent prejudice there. He has simply made an argument against Christianity. You have taken it personally. I admire your devotion to your religion but allow somebody else to have an opinion and open your mind to some non-biblical thought.

I also agree with cs, if I am understanding him correctly. The more you spout bible quotations, the less support you garner.

And my point is, his statement, to which you have pledged allegiance, is filled with historical inaccuracies and prejudices, which I dealt with one by one. It is nice to see that you are able to hold onto your faith, in spite of fact and reason.

[zeusbheld]

It is nice to see that you are able to hold onto your faith, in spite of fact and reason.

likewise.

[scutfargus]

I also agree with cs, if I am understanding him correctly. The more you spout bible quotations, the less support you garner.

One of Sgt Pepper's notions was the ridiculous charge that everyone thought the world was flat, and he implied this was related to early Christianity.

Amusingly people all thought the world was flat! up until quite recently. The BIbile course never mentions that little detail and instead has some fairytales about adam and eve and an assortment of other fantastic tales thrown in too.

Since the Bible maintains that the earth is a circle or a sphere and that it hangs upon nothing, do you think I should answer his charge without quoting the relevant passages? Do you propose I call him a name and say, "Oh, no, you're wrong on this" and stop there? Unlike most of the people in this thread, I provide secular and nonsecular evidence for the statements that I make which are challenged and for the gross inaccuracies about Christians and Christianity which are perpetrated in this thread. What anyone chooses to do with the evidence is up to them...I have offered to several people in this thread to buy them a book which deals with the evidence concerning the veracity of the Bible and salvation in Jesus Christ. No one wants that. It is not a matter of evidence, it is a matter of volition. Your freewill chooses and, in some cases, just makes up history out of thin air in order to justify your position (I am not referring to you personally here, but to several people in this thread). So, yes, point taken that I will never be able to argue someone into believing in Jesus Christ; however, I have shown time and time again that living in darkness is a matter of choice and more a matter of blind faith than the faith I have.

Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him (John 8:57?59a). The Jews in that era knew exactly what Jesus was saying, even if many people 2000 years later deny this.

[scutfargus]

It is nice to see that you are able to hold onto your faith, in spite of fact and reason.

likewise.

You fail to acknowledge that I have provided more secular and nonsecular evidence for what I believe than everyone else on this thread combined. I can only think of 2 people off the top of my head that have brought up actual reasonable questions, even though these appeared to be taken directly from websites...which questions, by the way, I addressed with logic, facts and reason.

But, who am I to get in the way of a well-placed flippant remark? A common debate technique is, if you can't out-argue someone, then you ridicule them instead. In that respect, you made a well-reasoned choice here, Zeus.

[zeusbheld]

It is nice to see that you are able to hold onto your faith, in spite of fact and reason.

likewise.

You fail to acknowledge that I have provided more secular and nonsecular evidence for what I believe than everyone else on this thread combined. I can only think of 2 people off the top of my head that have brought up actual reasonable questions, even though these appeared to be taken directly from websites...which questions, by the way, I addressed with logic, facts and reason.

But, who am I to get in the way of a well-placed flippant remark? A common debate technique is, if you can't out-argue someone, then you ridicule them instead. In that respect, you made a well-reasoned choice here, Zeus.

said it before, i'm not interested in this debate. havent been reading it. i do like seeing it go longer and longer though, it amuses me.

flippant remark is a byproduct of your skewed "evidence" and refusal to directly address any points that would have mattered in your "evolution is a hoax' thread.

if people either won't read or can't understand what i say, or twists it around constantly to what they WANT to read in order to support what they're attempting to say, why NOT dismiss them with a flippant remark? it's about alll the attention they're worth.

[scutfargus]

flippant remark is a byproduct of your skewed "evidence" and refusal to directly address any points that would have mattered in your "evolution is a hoax' thread.

I have admitted in that thread that I did not understand your question/requirement, and have asked on several occasions for clarification and have even suggested some starting points, to find out if these would be worthy places to start from. All you have said is, "I want the scientific method" and you don't go into any more detail than that. I am admitting that I do not know what you expect or are asking for. In the evolution thread, I have asked for more direction, specifics, or whatever.

I posted about a week ago, asking if an evolution scientist should be able to pick up a human or a pre-human fossil and accurately classify it the first time out, apart from any dating method. I am not talking about your or I here, but someone who is paid to do this research. Should they be able to pick up a fossil bone and toss it into one two piles:

1) We know what this fossil is--it is a homo habilis (or whatever); and then, no matter what else happens they should be able to stick to this identification.

or

2) We don't know what this fossil is yet; so we cannot use it to either support or denigrate our theories.

You have not answered this question, nor has anyone else. Should we be able to expect this of those who dig up and identify fossils?

[Superdave]

"And my point is, his statement, to which you have pledged allegiance, is filled with historical inaccuracies..."

And you know what? Sgt made some typos too!! You're completely losing the basic premise of his argument. Christianity, or the idea of a saviour/son of God would not hold up today in the face of science and knowledge. He would be an urban legend at best. A random few claiming to have seen him perform his various miracles.

Billy Graham? Come on!! As the saying goes "preaching to the choir" And that doesn't address Sgt's argument. Take away the concept of a "son of God" 2000 years ago and enter that concept today. Suppose I am to tell you I'm the son of God? Are you to believe that? No? You need proof? Well I have the writings of Zeusbheld and a handful of others to vouch for me. How about now? I'm sure that's good enough because that's where you are now? You are accepting the writings of the bible as proof that JC was the "son of God".

Again, I admire your devotion. Whatever a person's religion, if it gives them solace and induces them to lead a moral life then it is acceptable in my eyes. What I take issue with is your insistence that your views are fact.

To Sgt: If I have inaccurately defended your argument, my apologies

[zeusbheld]

flippant remark is a byproduct of your skewed "evidence" and refusal to directly address any points that would have mattered in your "evolution is a hoax' thread.

I have admitted in that thread that I did not understand your question/requirement, and have asked on several occasions for clarification and have even suggested some starting points, to find out if these would be worthy places to start from. All you have said is, "I want the scientific method" and you don't go into any more detail than that. I am admitting that I do not know what you expect or are asking for.

you raise a question about the philosophy of science and you dont understand the concept of the scientific method? as far as i'm concerned no further questions are necessary, you dont know enough of what you're talking about to be worth my time. i arleady said that several times, apparently my english is poor? i know i dont stutter when i type.

the fact that you dont understand the question is more than enough to convince me that you don't understand how science is supposed to work well enough to debate whether evolution is science, or how the evidence is interpreted.

didnt respond to your questions because they're silly, irrelevant, misleading and out of context. so the short answer is, i could care less about the questions, because you have not defined a context where the answer is epistemologically meaningful.

so its not worth wasting even these few paragraphs on for me, except for the cheap thrill of seeing this thread get a little longer.

THIS THREAD: 538 posts, 4636 views, 35+ pages.

[Superdave]

"THIS THREAD: 538 posts, 4636 views, 35 pages"

I'm new to this. Previously a casual observer. Is that a record?

[zeusbheld]

"THIS THREAD: 538 posts, 4636 views, 35 pages"

I'm new to this. Previously a casual observer. Is that a record?

dont know, hoping admin will confirm. probably.

"and the oscar for best windup goes to.... ZEUSBHELD!"...

i can dream, cant i??? :twisted:

[DJTX]

"THIS THREAD: 538 posts, 4636 views, 35 pages"

I'm new to this. Previously a casual observer. Is that a record?

dont know, hoping admin will confirm. probably.

"and the oscar for best windup goes to.... ZEUSBHELD!"...

i can dream, cant i??? :twisted:

Hey, that's right - you started this didn't you :twisted: Hmm, some form of punishment seems to be in order :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :roll:

OK - you buy a round of drinks for every person who posted in this thread 8) Hey, it could be worse - it could be a round for every peron on TF who had to endure this thread :shock: :shock: :shock:

[zeusbheld]

OK - you buy a round of drinks for every person who posted in this thread 8)

only if i my award is cash and / or alcohol.

Hey, it could be worse - it could be a round for every peron on TF who had to endure this thread :shock: :shock: :shock:

onlooker delay. ya say how awful it is... but ya keep lookin doncha.

[Khun_Sam]

epistemologically

Holy cow, what was THAT? :shock: