Um... what about the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution? Nothing? that''s what I thought. Gravity is understood, and easily tested and proved. Christ being God and human at the same time makes no sense, cannot be tested, and will never be proven.

Your arguments use quotes from the Bible, that''s like me supporting evolution with quotes from Darwin, it is stupid and doesn''t work. It is a perfect example of: "If I read it, it must be true!" "If I dont understand it (Jesus) it must be God!"

Why did these people crucify Christ anyway?

If God loves everyone why not give people a sign that he exists so they go to heaven?

The anonymous person who pitifully attempted to refute Mr. Biceps'' arguments is just mindlessly repeating the Bible, and has not refuted anything.

>>>>If Jesus willingly went to the cross, was it then a suicide?
>>>>"Isn''t suicide a big, bad sin? There seems to be a very fine
>>>>line between sacrificing yourself and committing suicide...
>>>>(Of course, in Jesus'' case, he sacrificed himself to himself
>>>>without actually dying, just to confuse matters further).

>>He went wilingly but it wasn''t himself who killed him. It was
>>a man.

Um how does this answer the question? If someone willingly goes to their meaningless death, it is suicide. Your argument is much like saying that if two people cut each other''s wrists and just wait for death, it isn''t suicide because they didn''t actually kill THEMSELVES.

>>You can argue that gravity doesn''t exist, but we all know that
>>if you jump off a cliff you''ll surely hit the ground.

You can''t argue that gravity doesn''t exist, because it is easily proven that it does. If you can easily prove that God exists, that would be interesting.

>>Being hung on a tree to die was a curse.

huh?

>>It is possible to inflict pain on an immortal,omnipotent,
>>omniscent entity if they allow it.

So God has nerves... interesting. Why would he allow it? That would be stupid, he already knows what it feels like (omniscient).

>>If he stayed dead then he wasn''t God. He claimed to be God and
>>he is God. Therefore he allowed himself to die then raised
>>HIMSELF from the dead. That is how he conquerored death.

The point is that he''s not sacrificing anything, it''s like if I sacrifice my finger to God and then get it reattached surgically, it defeats the purpose.

>>We can say he manipulated events, but that''s from our
>>perspective. If you could see ALL events that ever happened from
>>the begining of time to the end of time one could say that you
>>manipulated it. He has a different perspective then we do.

Um... is this supposed to answer the question? Another typical Xian tactic, arguing "We can never fathom God''s reasons"

>>The love God has for us is so great that if you were the only
>>one to accept him EVER he would have still let himself die.
>>Judas was cursed by Christ himself

That''s like me dying for my computer programs.

Anyways a main point is how is your religion better than other religions?

How is it even better than my lightbulb religion? (see my previous post if you have no idea what im talking about)

-David

Hmmm, I think everyone is missing the point the guy with "#define JESUS 1" as a signature was trying to make. He was making a statement that he believes Jesus/Christianity is evil as I''m sure we can all agree that #define''s are evil...

Evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics because that law is for a _whole_ system. The story about Adam and Eve can of course be true (literal) but it is hard to discuss since it would require some kind of God.

The theory about evolution is well established and we shall not pretend anything else. If some of the stories from the bible should be taken literal is more actions from God above that is written in the bible necessary. I do not know if it is sad or sick that some seems to think that scientists are evil if they come up with something that seems to contradict some part of the bible.

****Quote****************************************************
1) Lack of transition fossils, since fossils of animals that were in the process of changing from reptiles to birds, are uncommon.

Well, duh, most of these "transition animals" were killed and eaten, they weren''t usually buried. The very large changes are usually rather sudden, as in less than a million years, because the ''"transition" species couldn''t survive very well.
****Quote****************************************************

Hmm. If this were true, then that would also imply that the offspring of such "transition species" would be extremely rare. It is logical to say that if these species were being killed and eaten, it would have been before they were sexually mature, therefor lowering the chance of succesful offspring occuring. And without a LONG line of generations of offspring, the evolution of these species could never have even taken place.

I''m interested in how many atheists have actually ever researched anything at all about God. Every single atheist that I have met has never given an effort to find the truth. It seems to be much easier to go with the media and school teachings then to search for it by one''s self. With that, I propose a challenge. Would you be willing to search for the truth, or would you rather go by blind trust in other people''s ideas? If you would actually search for God, you might in fact find out what is true. If God does not exist, then what did you lose? A search should be fair, I should add... Give it a chance, and learn. That is, unless you want to not check for yourself?

It''s amazing how these arguments always go. Everyone is very close minded, and trying to argue against things that they don''t understand using evidence that they don''t fully understand. To quote MrBiceps, "There are so many misconceptions floating around here." It also always revolves around Christianity vs. Science. I''ve never yet seen any other religious group enter into the fray. Other takes on the issue might be somewhat interesting.
As David20321 pointed out, the 2nd law of thermodynamics has no impact on the theory of evolution. Furthermore, there are some fundamental laws of physics which are fairly well understood, and proven. However, even these are questioned from time to time, the latest example would be the gravitational anomalies affecting the pioneer spacecraft (ArsTechnica has a bit on it http://www.arstechnica.com/).
This ability to question things that you think that you know for sure is healthy, and something that a lot of people seem to lack, especially people involved in arguments like these. No I do not believe that either side is free from guilt.

It has been a while since I did any studies of the different sides, and when I did, all but one of the books I have ever read are guilty of finger pointing. The Athiest writers seem to have a vendetta against the belief that there is a God, as if they have something to PROVE, almost as if they are trying to stomp out thier own belief. The Christians on the other hand seem to attempt to find arguments that support their view, no matter how strange they may seem, almost as if they were beginning to doubt, and needed to find something to aid them in that belief.

As David20321 implied earlier, the existance of God cannot be tested, and will never be proven. However this goes both ways, because the idea that God doesn''t exist also cannot be tested and will never be proven. That is to say that the existance or non-existance of God is not something that can be proven scientifically.
Something a few of you seem to be neglecting is that the Bible as we have it today is a translation, and as such is open to some interpretation. A literal six day creation is not necisarily the case, and if you look at the order of creation, it pretty much coincides with what evolutionists say. Neither is a "Global" flood the only interpretation of the passages about the flood, and from my studies (a couple of years ago), there is more evidence to support this than there is a global flood. All I mean to say by this is that you Christians (Xians as some would say) reading this thread should open your minds to the possibilities.

It is also apparent that several non-Christians, as MrBiceps demonstrated, do not understand what they are arguing against. They may know bits and pieces, but what they know, they do not understand. Because they do not understand, they usually attack it as though it were nonsense, without questioning it. And the one topic that always comes up is predestination vs. free will. Now in this argument, it seems that the Christians do not fully know what to believe, and thus do not know how to present whatever information that they do know. For this, I suggest you study up on apologetics.

Closing comment:
This is for everyone. I would like to challenge you to keep open minds. It is one thing to say that you have an open mind, it is another to actually keep your mind open. Just because you do not understand something, don''t reject it completely, but TEST it. if something seems to contradict what you think is right, that might just mean that you need to look at it a different way.

About many people with closed minds, that is very true, but personally I have read much of the Bible recently, and have visited many creationist sites that try to explain Christianity scientifically, creationscience.com, bible.com, some others and understand the Christian point of view as well as a non-Christian can. I also used to be a Christian, my parents took me to Church and taught me that God exists, but later on in life I realized that none of it makes sense.
It is impossible to prove whether a God exists who Can Do Anything yet DOES NOTHING... but it is possible to prove that there is no hard evidence to support it. It is easy to argue for xians to argue that everything in the Bible is a symbol, but then everything else might as well be a symbol. God could be a symbol, Adam + Eve could be a symbol, etc.
My personal belief is that the author(s) of the Bible were great philosophers who wanted to make sure people behaved in a fashion that is not self-destructive by praying on their hopes of a better life after death and their fear of burning in hell for eternity, and that these fantasies are no longer necessary, and are an embarrasment and hindrance to all real research and discovery.
If the Bible was never written nobody would be Christian. Therefore it logically follows that the Bible is the source of Christianity. Since the Bible was written by a human, I forget exactly who however, it seems unlikely that a human could create an omnipotent being that has been around longer then the author. Most sane people will agree that characters that are written in a fictional book are not real, as are these events.
Most sane people will also agree that books which contain talking snakes, invisible men in the sky, floods that cover the earth, and witches and warlocks that cast spells are works of fiction, commonly classified as "fantasy novels". There are some interesting fantasy novels, and the Bible is rather interesting, yet it''s writing style is rather old.
The problem is that many Christians feel that they are far superior to everyone else, that they are the "chosen few'' who get to go to heaven while the remaining majority of Earth goes to hell to burn forever, getting what they "deserve".
As I said earlier, if God sends (or "doesn''t save" they are the same thing to an omnipotent being) a hundred million people to hell every year, he is MUCH worse than HITLER AND ALL OTHER MASS-MURDERING DICTATORS EVER because all they do is kill people, while God sends them to burn for ETERNITY.
Also there is no evidence that Jesus was anything but a normal carpenter except what is written in the Bible. There is actually no evidence that he even EXISTED other than that written in the Bible.
I have already gone over most of this, Mr. Biceps has shown why the flood is impossible, now all you xians are resorting to saying the flood was only in the local area. Wow there was a flood nearby last year, maybe that''s what it was talking about. It was talking about a #$(*ing GLOBAL flood, which was disproven, which should be enough to show that the Bible is wrong.
Evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt many times, which contradicts the Bible. More proof that it is wrong. The reason athiests seem to feel that they have something to prove is that they do. We want to show you xians how wrong you are, because we (at least I am) kind of pissed off by the arrogant nature of the religion and many of its practitioners. Yes I know this is kind of hypocritical since now I feel superior since you people who still believe in fairy tales are acting like overgrown children, but at least I (and all other athiests) have hard evidence to support our beliefs.
About people whose prayers are supposedly answered... most xians pray "Your will, not mine" prayers, I learned this from e-mail correspondence with one of your strongest supporters. These "your will, not mine" prayers basically say, "God, if you are going to do _____ anyways, please do ______. If you were going to something else, do whatever you were going to do." These prayers thus accomplish nothing, if you think about it.
To respond to some of the recent posters:
>>I''m interested in how many atheists have actually ever
>>researched anything at all about God. Every single atheist that
>>I have met has never given an effort to find the truth. It seems
>>to be much easier to go with the media and school teachings then
>>to search for it by one''s self. With that, I propose a
>>challenge. Would you be willing to search for the truth, or
>>would you rather go by blind trust in other people''s ideas? If
>>you would actually search for God, you might in fact find out
>>what is true. If God does not exist, then what did you lose? A
>>search should be fair, I should add... Give it a chance, and
>>learn. That is, unless you want to not check for yourself?

As I mentioned before, I have read much of the bible, although this was a long time ago and I am a bit rusty on the fine points, I also research all my points to make sure they have thourough scientific backing, as opposed to many xian claims:
I am still laughing at wrenhal''s claim:
>>"There is no similarity between our DNA and monkey''s"
I added this to my note pad full of Xian claims that have no merit, along with OpenGLGuy''s claim:
>>Hmm. If this were true, then that would also imply that the
>>offspring of such "transition species" would be extremely rare. >>It is logical to say that if these species were being killed and >>eaten, it would have been before they were sexually mature,
>>therefor lowering the chance of succesful offspring occuring.
>>And without a LONG line of generations of offspring, the
>> evolution of these species could never have even taken place.

My point of course was the the UNSUCCESSFUL transition species were killed, obviously the successful ones survived, or else they wouldn''t be successful. The steps between reptile and bird survived because they became progressively faster and harder to catch, for example Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, which were both Jurassic examples of transition species between reptile and bird. The other obvious reason (if you think about it) that the fossils of creatures transitioning between reptile and bird are hard to find, is that the hollow, lightweight skeletal structure of birds does not easily form fossils. Do you understand now? Good.

-David

"When will the rhetorical questions end?"

Looks like someone got the intent of my last post In keeping with my own advice, I have a few questions for the science types out there

I have studied the theories of evolution, and the big bang, and as of the time I studied, there were really no GOOD explanations for two particular things. Since a few of you seem to know quite a lot, I shall pose these two problems, to see what you have to say.

1) The Big Bang: My understanding of the big bang is that there was some ball of matter, that exploded, and from the expansion of that matter, the universe was formed. Granted this is a brief summary, but it is the essence of the theory. Only two things are not well understood/explained. First off, where did this matter come from? Second, what made it explode? The best explanation of the first that I''ve heard comes from the equality of energy and mass, and the idea of positive and negative. Essentially it stated that neutral (nothing) separated into positive and negative (Quantum Physics anyone?).

2) The Beginnings of Life: It seems fairly obvious that life did evolve, however, there is little understanding of what environment is necessary for the formation of life. i.e. how did the beginnings of life come about? What conditions are necessary for this to happen? The last I heard (and this was a while ago) was that scientists have been able to conduct experiments that create simple RNA, but not DNA. Then once the necessary elements for life are formed how might the orginization have taken place?

Someone who has some knowledge of recent theories and ideas on these two issues please post some info.

I''m not sure what the most common theories on the cause of the Big Bang are, but one that makes sense is that the universe has existed forever, but constantly expands, and then contracts, and forms a ball of matter which after an extremely long time forms in the particular arrangement that causes it to explode, and so on forever. There is really no way to find evidence for the Big Bang however, because when it occured it destroyed all of it and dispersed it around the universe.
I hear that life was formed in a "primordial soup" which contained all these elements of life, carbon, oxygen, etc. and eventually after billions of years of constant shifting, these elements inevitably formed a self-replicating pattern, a simple version of early DNA, and evolution went from there.

You know what pisses me off. If theists are right, then they get to laugh at all the atheists in hell, but if atheists are right, they never have a chance to shove it in theists faces. Thats the burden we live with. If you ask me, atheists are the most courageous and brave people in the world, if we are wrong in our beliefs, its eternal damnation and torture, hahaha.

*** Triality ***