What if the athiests are wrong & there REALLY is God?

[ March 28, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]

 

No, it does not. When Columbus "found" america, if I were to make wild claims that Columbus was not the first person to "discover" it I would be laughed at. Today, I would not.

At the time, if you had asked me to provide this evidence, I would have been at a loss to do so, but now you can site many sources. It was a matter of time and research. There is not relative truth, but there are differing degrees to which we have a knowledge of this truth. You can't change what happened, you can only change what we all think happened when the evidence presents itself.

However, you can say something is the best know theory for the time. There can be no absolutes for historical matters as we were not there to witness them. It is all a matter of faith. Evidence builds that faith and we mainly put our trust in that evidence to build our thoughts and beliefs, but sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes what is common knowledge is completely backwards.

Actually, we never really rule anything out ever do we? How many skeptics out there don't believe we landed on the moon? How many don't think Osama was directly responsible for 911? How many think the archeoptryx is a bird? a reptile? both? neither? How many think Gore won the election? Bush?

Although I love you putting words in my mouth, I would have to get back to the subject at hand. You asked a question that I am still stating is unreasonable to answer. For the longest time people kept saying that King Nebuchadnezzar (as well as Nebuchadnezzar II) never existed, then, poof...proof. So, you are telling me that before they found this proof...he was not a real king with a real empire? Surely you can't! What you are then saying is, "there is not enough evidence for me to believe it" and I am saying, "give it time".

http://www.nisbett.com/people/bp-nebuchadnezzar.htm
http://www.ripon.edu/clark_collection/cuneiform.html
http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaThe_Babylonian_Chronicle00000196.htm

Although you would like everyone to believe that an event never occured because we can't give 100% definitive proof today, March 28th 2002...this is simply not true. You are asking me for evidence, I provided some (I am sure you will find it insufficient...even the piece in the British Museum.

jason

 

Wow. What an intelligent, thoughtful, and convincing response to the information BJT posted. I was an evolutionist until I read your articulate, clever comeback. You've totally convinced me, El.

Seriously, what was your point with the above post? Were you trying to make a point about creation as opposed to evolution? Or were you just trying to make BJT look stupid for having a lot of time to dig up this information? Do you have a response to anything he said, or were you just posting to make fun of his thorough understanding of evolutionary theory? I really don't get what you were trying to do with that post, unless it was purely a mean-spirited jab.

Personally, I'd be thrilled if people made fun of me for having too much knowledge. Really...is that supposed to be an insult? Most people consider education and having a wealth of knowledge at one's fingertips to be a GOOD thing.

Sorry to the moderators if this post is overly snarky, but I don't think the tone is any worse than El's original post.

[ March 28, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Melly ]

 

Big John Trapper -

I did a little checking around and I now know who you are. You are committing an act of trespass. If you don't believe me do a search on internet trespassing. The federal court sites are credible enough for you, I'm sure.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

I guess, I will chime in on the rain drop / rainbow issue. Clint is correct on this one folks. And one only need to see a picture of Niagara falls to prove his claim that only water vapor is required.

Having been there myself, you will see rainbows everyday with the sun at the right angle. The rainbows are situated high above where any water drops are found, only rising and suspended water vapors are at those heights. Clint wins, case closed.

[ March 28, 2002, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Since it's you asking, sure, dogwood!

BJT was a previously banned member (one of the guys from II, just imagine! Where's the ethics?). The Federal courts have ruled that internet web sites are real property, just like land or your home and are thus not public domain. Therefore, just as in your home, you can invite someone in, and you can expel someone. IF that person returns, they are guilty of criminal trespass under Federal Law and run the risk of litigation.

So you see, it's not only childish, rude, unethical and dishonest to return to a website from which one is banned, it is also criminal!

Thanks for asking, dogwood! Take care.

- Clint

 

HEY! post-it got a picture up!!!

 

Kachana -

I posted a link or two about the languages issue and nobody said anything about it (Actually, BJT said something about it before he got booted. He said, in essense, 'Linguists are not evolutionists so the entire article is false'. This argument is false on so many levels it should not be taken seriosly)

What is the general idea you have about languages? Common decent of language? As this would be needed to support language from an evolutionary standpoint.

It has been shown that several languages in the world do not have common roots. If they do not have common roots, and could not have gone through the linguistic evolutionary process, from where did they originate?

This is just the start of the discussion, just getting the feet wet so don't yell and complain about me being simple. I am just trying to get the arguments right.

jason

 

Yes. I'm quite certain of my facts and just to keep you informed, it is well on it's way to international law. Even at this point, your server could face its share of legal troubles if you were to trespass. You can thank the spamming advertisers for all of this new Federal legislation. If it weren't for them, there probably wouldn't be ANY laws governing the web.

 

It's late, but a quick search gave me this site to get you going on your investigation: http://www.lawcommerce.com/newsletters/art_OHS_cybersurfers010117.asp

 

While this is all well and good, this does nothing to sway me away from a tower of babel mass confusion scenario.

1. Hard wired language, as you state it, would give more credability to a design than randomness suggesting we have the ability of language for a reason.
2. This new language scenario is needed by the tower of babel idea but not by standard evolution practices (and actually would hinder an entire species evolution)

This has always been speculated, and has even led to some sci-fi devices such as 'language translation this or that'. To date, all attempts to even break down the grammer similiarties of such languages has been futile (to my knowledge). It has also been speculated that there are languages without common roots. This is not a popular theory, even though it is completely valid and even logical, as it would completely destroy our modern world view.

I have never said humans would not have this ability, as a matter of fact, I would support this. But to say that a starting language is not needed is not so. There ALWAYS has to be something on which to base the next step. If this primitive language was grunts and gurgles (as implied by standard evolution theory), this would still be a language.

As a matter of fact, why do we speak alternate languages at all? Why would we have evolved something which would cut us off from the rest of the species?

I was reading something (can't find the hardcopy article anymore), but it implied that cats (this was about the domestic house cat) can still communicate with other cats from all around the world. This communication was devoid of prejudice and spanned the entire cat family (big, small, domestic and wild). I have not seen any evidence to suggest that animals speak other languages, so why should we?

I could be corrected on the above point, but it does raise and interesting question, no?

In Christ,
jason

 

I think you're mixing your terms here, Mr. post-it. Water vapor is not equvalent to suspended water droplets. There's water vapor (gaseous water) in the air I'm breathing right now (to about a 50% relative humidity), but no chance of a (non-miraculous) rainbow. To get a rainbow you need suspended liquid water droplets, such as found in clouds, fog, rain, steam, and the mist caused by waterfalls.

Andy