T Nation

Creationism Museum

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

[quote]Ren wrote:

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!![/quote]

OK…and so your point is what?

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?[/quote]

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.[/quote]

So does evolution, but there are plenty of museums dedicated to that very unscientific “theory.”

Creationism and Evolution are both faith based explanations of how everything began and developed. The fact is that both are “religious” in nature, but your side wants total dominion in our educational system. To this I and others like me say – “no, sorry, you cannot have the stage all to yourself.”

Creation = God made it all with His purpose in mind. Therefore, we are God’s creation and are accountable to Him.

Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.

So, why do you have a problem with a museum dedicated to Creationism when you have no problem with those who tout evolution?

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.

So does evolution, but there are plenty of museums dedicated to that very unscientific “theory.”

Creationism and Evolution are both faith based explanations of how everything began and developed. The fact is that both are “religious” in nature, but your side wants total dominion in our educational system. To this I and others like me say – “no, sorry, you cannot have the stage all to yourself.”

Creation = God made it all with His purpose in mind. Therefore, we are God’s creation and are accountable to Him.

Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.

So, why do you have a problem with a museum dedicated to Creationism when you have no problem with those who tout evolution?
[/quote]

Evolution is fact.

Natural Selection is theory.

We know it happened. We have the bones as evidence. Only the religious nuts won’t except that. Whether it was God or natural selection that did it is the issue.

Whats easier to beleive? And infinite universe? Or an infinite ultimate being that created a universe?

Seriously. We have proof of eveolution. There is no proof of creationism. Period.

Proof is what you put in scientific museums. You know, technically, gravity isn’t totally air tight. Something that goes up will PROBABLY come down.

If it’s most probable, it’s close enough to fact that it can be accepted.

Creationism has no proof. No evidence. No scientific relation at all. Not musuem material.

Evolution however, has documented, undeniable evidence. Carbon dating, skeletons, DNA and genetic evidence.

“Creationism” is crap. Intelligent Design, however, is just as viable as Natural Selection. IE: God or Natural Selection is the how, even though evolution is still the what.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.

So does evolution, but there are plenty of museums dedicated to that very unscientific “theory.”

Creationism and Evolution are both faith based explanations of how everything began and developed. The fact is that both are “religious” in nature, but your side wants total dominion in our educational system. To this I and others like me say – “no, sorry, you cannot have the stage all to yourself.”

Creation = God made it all with His purpose in mind. Therefore, we are God’s creation and are accountable to Him.

Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.

So, why do you have a problem with a museum dedicated to Creationism when you have no problem with those who tout evolution?

Evolution is fact.

Natural Selection is theory.

We know it happened. We have the bones as evidence. Only the religious nuts won’t except that. Whether it was God or natural selection that did it is the issue.

Whats easier to beleive? And infinite universe? Or an infinite ultimate being that created a universe?

Seriously. We have proof of eveolution. There is no proof of creationism. Period.

Proof is what you put in scientific museums. You know, technically, gravity isn’t totally air tight. Something that goes up will PROBABLY come down.

If it’s most probable, it’s close enough to fact that it can be accepted.

Creationism has no proof. No evidence. No scientific relation at all. Not musuem material.

Evolution however, has documented, undeniable evidence. Carbon dating, skeletons, DNA and genetic evidence.

“Creationism” is crap. Intelligent Design, however, is just as viable as Natural Selection. IE: God or Natural Selection is the how, even though evolution is still the what.
[/quote]

You are simply wrong. Evolution is not fact and it has not been proven. Even scientists don’t dare call it the “Law of Evolution.” If it were proven it would be a law, not a “theory.”

The fact is that you cannot point to anything that proves evolution, because you simply weren’t there. Nobody was there and there is no evidence – bones or otherwise to prove it. In fact, you cannot even prove the “millions and billions of years.”

There have been many debates on these threads about this and so I will not go on, but I just laugh at those who say this. Either you are very ignorant of basic science – the fact that a theory must lend itself to be falsified to be a scientific theory and the flaws of carbon dating and the fact that evolution violates the 1st and 2nd LAWS of thermodynamics – or you willfully assert what is not true.

Either way, Evolution is a religion since it is based upon faith. Creation is the same thing – faith.

Period.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.

So does evolution, but there are plenty of museums dedicated to that very unscientific “theory.”

Creationism and Evolution are both faith based explanations of how everything began and developed. The fact is that both are “religious” in nature, but your side wants total dominion in our educational system. To this I and others like me say – “no, sorry, you cannot have the stage all to yourself.”

Creation = God made it all with His purpose in mind. Therefore, we are God’s creation and are accountable to Him.

Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.

So, why do you have a problem with a museum dedicated to Creationism when you have no problem with those who tout evolution?

Evolution is fact.

Natural Selection is theory.

We know it happened. We have the bones as evidence. Only the religious nuts won’t except that. Whether it was God or natural selection that did it is the issue.

Whats easier to beleive? And infinite universe? Or an infinite ultimate being that created a universe?

Seriously. We have proof of eveolution. There is no proof of creationism. Period.

Proof is what you put in scientific museums. You know, technically, gravity isn’t totally air tight. Something that goes up will PROBABLY come down.

If it’s most probable, it’s close enough to fact that it can be accepted.

Creationism has no proof. No evidence. No scientific relation at all. Not musuem material.

Evolution however, has documented, undeniable evidence. Carbon dating, skeletons, DNA and genetic evidence.

“Creationism” is crap. Intelligent Design, however, is just as viable as Natural Selection. IE: God or Natural Selection is the how, even though evolution is still the what.

You are simply wrong. Evolution is not fact and it has not been proven. Even scientists don’t dare call it the “Law of Evolution.” If it were proven it would be a law, not a “theory.”

The fact is that you cannot point to anything that proves evolution, because you simply weren’t there. Nobody was there and there is no evidence – bones or otherwise to prove it. In fact, you cannot even prove the “millions and billions of years.”

There have been many debates on these threads about this and so I will not go on, but I just laugh at those who say this. Either you are very ignorant of basic science – the fact that a theory must lend itself to be falsified to be a scientific theory and the flaws of carbon dating and the fact that evolution violates the 1st and 2nd LAWS of thermodynamics – or you willfully assert what is not true.

Either way, Evolution is a religion since it is based upon faith. Creation is the same thing – faith.

Period.
[/quote]

A) I never said it was absolute fact. I said, accepted fact. It has evidence. Dinosaur bones are evidence. The fact that our DNA is so similar to ape’s and monkie’s DNA.

B) Scientific Theory is simply a term used for something that explains something so well it can be accepted via evidence. Theorys need evidence. Creationism is not a viable scientific theory.

C) The LAWS of Thermodynamics are accepted truths as well. Plus, they apply to closed, perfect systems. Not out infinitly open, unperfect world.

D) Carbon dating, as well as other Isotope type datings, lend to the acceptance of a long lasting universe. As do the red/blue magnetic wave Theories, and the Theory of the ever-expanding universe.

The bible also says the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat, and many more things. Do these “facts” deserve museums as well?

Creationism is mythology.

Evolution is science.

Natural Selection is based on faith. As is creationism. But Natural Selection has evidence and proof. Creationism has jack diddly. There are things that can be used to argue AGAINST natural selection, but there are also things that can be used to argue against gravity, and the fact that the Earth is round (I’ve done an extensive debate where I proved the Earth is flat as a pancake. It’s possible mathmatically, and fun as hell to do).

However, there is no evidence of creationism, unless you perscribe to the bananna, pentagonial “theory” (which is utterly ridiculous).

And guess what? Non-American scientists? The ones who aren’t afraid of the big bad religious factions? Do call Evolution fact. All the time. In fact, most of the world, even Africa, thinks the US citizens are borderline retarded for beleiving in things like Creationism and other literal translations of religious texts.

Like I said before, Evolution has research, evidence, and support. Creationism has mythology and beliefe.

There is nothing wrong with beliefe. You can beleive all you want. Have faith in all that, I’m all for it if thats what your into. But don’t tout it as a liable scientific theory.

My use of the word “fact” refers to accepted truthes. Not absolute ones (which are impossible and do not exist)

Well, for starters there is pretty much nothing REAL there. No actual fossils, artifacts, anything really existed in the couple of hundred million years the earth has been around, oh, wait, 6000 years, my bad!

Next we have the whole people running around with dinosaurs things. I mean hell, if you can claim that evolution as a theory has holes in it, that 1st sentence has gaps big enough to sail an oil tanker through!!

I am also hoping for a detailed description on how Noah managed to get all the animals into the ark, something which should enlighten all of us as a transportational marvel, and maybe give zoos some new ideas on getting their lions and zebras to get along.

We have had enough ID vs evolution and creationisim vs abiogenesis threads already.

Now if you will excuse me, I am off to acquire funding for my museum dedicated to the flying spaghetti monster and the immense power of his noodly appendage!

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.

So does evolution, but there are plenty of museums dedicated to that very unscientific “theory.”

Creationism and Evolution are both faith based explanations of how everything began and developed. The fact is that both are “religious” in nature, but your side wants total dominion in our educational system. To this I and others like me say – “no, sorry, you cannot have the stage all to yourself.”

Creation = God made it all with His purpose in mind. Therefore, we are God’s creation and are accountable to Him.

Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.

So, why do you have a problem with a museum dedicated to Creationism when you have no problem with those who tout evolution?

Evolution is fact.

Natural Selection is theory.

We know it happened. We have the bones as evidence. Only the religious nuts won’t except that. Whether it was God or natural selection that did it is the issue.

Whats easier to beleive? And infinite universe? Or an infinite ultimate being that created a universe?

Seriously. We have proof of eveolution. There is no proof of creationism. Period.

Proof is what you put in scientific museums. You know, technically, gravity isn’t totally air tight. Something that goes up will PROBABLY come down.

If it’s most probable, it’s close enough to fact that it can be accepted.

Creationism has no proof. No evidence. No scientific relation at all. Not musuem material.

Evolution however, has documented, undeniable evidence. Carbon dating, skeletons, DNA and genetic evidence.

“Creationism” is crap. Intelligent Design, however, is just as viable as Natural Selection. IE: God or Natural Selection is the how, even though evolution is still the what.

You are simply wrong. Evolution is not fact and it has not been proven. Even scientists don’t dare call it the “Law of Evolution.” If it were proven it would be a law, not a “theory.”

The fact is that you cannot point to anything that proves evolution, because you simply weren’t there. Nobody was there and there is no evidence – bones or otherwise to prove it. In fact, you cannot even prove the “millions and billions of years.”

There have been many debates on these threads about this and so I will not go on, but I just laugh at those who say this. Either you are very ignorant of basic science – the fact that a theory must lend itself to be falsified to be a scientific theory and the flaws of carbon dating and the fact that evolution violates the 1st and 2nd LAWS of thermodynamics – or you willfully assert what is not true.

Either way, Evolution is a religion since it is based upon faith. Creation is the same thing – faith.

Period.

A) I never said it was absolute fact. I said, accepted fact. It has evidence. Dinosaur bones are evidence. The fact that our DNA is so similar to ape’s and monkie’s DNA. [/quote]

Actually you did write that “Evolution is Fact.” Are you now qualifying it as “accepted?” Accepted by whom? I don’t accept it. Many people don’t accept it. Don’t you agree that schools teach this as ‘absolute’ fact – are you calling on teachers to present evolution as only accepted, but not absolute fact? Seems like a contradiction in your agrument to me.

Also, you say that dinosaur bones are evidence for evolution. How so? To me they are evidence only of these great creatures living at one time on Earth. Any ideas as to why they left? I have. [quote]

B) Scientific Theory is simply a term used for something that explains something so well it can be accepted via evidence. Theorys need evidence. Creationism is not a viable scientific theory.[/quote]

Actually, you are wrong. A ‘hypothesis’ is an idea that attempts to explain something – generally observed pheonmena in the natural world. Since the creation of the world and evolution on a macro scale as you assert cannot be observed, any explanation is, at best, a hypothesis which cannot be tested. A theory is something that can be tested and must lend itself to be tested to be a true scientific theory. Hence, both evolution and creation are faith based hypothesis which don’t belong in a science class. However, if you insist on teaching our children one faith based system, I say to be intellectually fair, we must present the other faith-based system as well. [quote]

C) The LAWS of Thermodynamics are accepted truths as well. Plus, they apply to closed, perfect systems. Not out infinitly open, unperfect world.[/quote]

Nonsense! The Universe taken as a whole is a closed system. These laws do, in fact, apply. I challenge you to name one instance where the Law of Entropy doesn’t apply. Name one.[quote]

D) Carbon dating, as well as other Isotope type datings, lend to the acceptance of a long lasting universe. As do the red/blue magnetic wave Theories, and the Theory of the ever-expanding universe.[/quote]

Really. Is that a fact. Well, then, how do you explain that at the rate of expanding, if you interpolate backwards for the billions of years, the moon would have been in Utah! Explain that one?

Creation would simply say that the world and universe was created with “apparant age,” i.e. Adam was a fully grown adult, etc. In addition, the Flood of Genesis changed the nature of the earth and thus the idea of “uniformitarianism” (everything has progressed exactly as it has from the beginning) is a flawed theory and thus erroneous dates will result. Carbon dating and the others are dependent upon the uniform concept of the world and universe. It is simply flawed. [quote]

The bible also says the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat, and many more things. Do these “facts” deserve museums as well?[/quote]

Really? Where does the Bible teach these things? Show me.

By the way, this is really weak because even if the Bible did teach this, that would not make evolution any more correct. [quote]

Creationism is mythology.

Evolution is science. [/quote]

This is your opinion and what evolutionists would like us to think. However, I have made concrete sceintific arguments showing why both of these systems are faith based and hence religious in nature.

Evolutionists love to beat the drum of “science” so we can think of evolution this way. This is pure nonesense.

I believe Creation and the Bible are fact and that evloution is fantasy. However, while I 100% believe this with all of by being, it is not science. Neither is your faith in evloution, my friend.

You need to be intellectually honest. [quote]

Natural Selection is based on faith. As is creationism. But Natural Selection has evidence and proof. Creationism has jack diddly. There are things that can be used to argue AGAINST natural selection, but there are also things that can be used to argue against gravity, and the fact that the Earth is round (I’ve done an extensive debate where I proved the Earth is flat as a pancake. It’s possible mathmatically, and fun as hell to do).

However, there is no evidence of creationism, unless you perscribe to the bananna, pentagonial “theory” (which is utterly ridiculous).

And guess what? Non-American scientists? The ones who aren’t afraid of the big bad religious factions? Do call Evolution fact. All the time. In fact, most of the world, even Africa, thinks the US citizens are borderline retarded for beleiving in things like Creationism and other literal translations of religious texts.

Like I said before, Evolution has research, evidence, and support. [/quote]

You say this, but provide nothing but hot air. You have presented absolutely nothing, but your own opinion. You are entitled to your opinon, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. [quote]

Creationism has mythology and beliefe.

There is nothing wrong with beliefe. You can beleive all you want. Have faith in all that, I’m all for it if thats what your into. But don’t tout it as a liable scientific theory.[/quote]

Perhaps you have trouble reading or understanding. I have written over and over again that Creationism is not science, but a faith in a Creator. It is belief – religion, pure and simple. However, so is evolution. You are placing your faith in some random processes. I am placing my faith in God. [quote]

My use of the word “fact” refers to accepted truthes. Not absolute ones (which are impossible and do not exist)[/quote]

Actually absolute truth does exist. God gives it to us in His Word. It is up to us to accept or reject it. I am sad that you have rejected His Truth.

Take care.

[quote]Ren wrote:
Well, for starters there is pretty much nothing REAL there. No actual fossils, artifacts, anything really existed in the couple of hundred million years the earth has been around, oh, wait, 6000 years, my bad!

Next we have the whole people running around with dinosaurs things. I mean hell, if you can claim that evolution as a theory has holes in it, that 1st sentence has gaps big enough to sail an oil tanker through!!

I am also hoping for a detailed description on how Noah managed to get all the animals into the ark, something which should enlighten all of us as a transportational marvel, and maybe give zoos some new ideas on getting their lions and zebras to get along.

We have had enough ID vs evolution and creationisim vs abiogenesis threads already.

Now if you will excuse me, I am off to acquire funding for my museum dedicated to the flying spaghetti monster and the immense power of his noodly appendage![/quote]

It is not up to me to prove Creation. I am not claiming it as science, but as God’s truth for us to believe.

The onus is on you people who place your faith in a theory thought up 150 years ago to prove it. You cannot.

As far as Noah – he took babies. You know small animals that eventually grew up and reproduced. Simple answer isn’t it? What do you think God is stupid and placed 100 ton animals on the Ark? How foolish!

Also, the Bible teaches that animals prior to the flood were not hostile to one another. This happend post-flood. Therefore, there would have been no problem on the Ark.

[quote]Ren wrote:
I am also hoping for a detailed description on how Noah managed to get all the animals into the ark, something which should enlighten all of us as a transportational marvel, and maybe give zoos some new ideas on getting their lions and zebras to get along.[/quote]

The animals were dehydrated with the ACME Dehydrolatrix3000™ and sealed in air tight cellophane packets. At voyage end, they were rehydrated with the ACME ReHydrolatrix3500™.

Here’s another Bible brain twister: If water covered even the highest peaks of land, Mt. Everest for example, wouldn’t the boat have been crushed by the formation of ice all around it once the boat elevated up to ~30,000 feet? Not to mention everyone on board would have frozen to death.

[quote]unearth wrote:
Ren wrote:
I am also hoping for a detailed description on how Noah managed to get all the animals into the ark, something which should enlighten all of us as a transportational marvel, and maybe give zoos some new ideas on getting their lions and zebras to get along.

The animals were dehydrated with the ACME Dehydrolatrix3000™ and sealed in air tight cellophane packets. At voyage end, they were rehydrated with the ACME ReHydrolatrix3500™.

Here’s another Bible brain twister: If water covered even the highest peaks of land, Mt. Everest for example, wouldn’t the boat have been crushed by the formation of ice all around it once the boat elevated up to ~30,000 feet? Not to mention everyone on board would have frozen to death.[/quote]

Where do you get the idea that the Ark landed in China? The Bible says that it landed in the mountains of Ararat. Do you know how tall these mountains are? Do you know of any of the geography of the area? Or are you just hostile toward God and want to make Him seem foolish? How sad.

Also, as I have said before, even if you could prove the Bible wrong – which you cannot – that would not make the case for the flawed ‘theory’ of evolution any more believable.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Rable, rable, rable.
[/quote]

Hey Steve,

Are you implying The Flood was only a local occurance, not global? It only effected lands circa the middle east, and more specifically, the area around the mountains of Ararat?

IF The Flood was global, AND The Flood covered ALL land, then the ark would have raised in altitude to what is now ~30,000 feet. The Ark would have been crushed by enclosing ice and the people on the Ark would have frozen to death.

Now, about the babies thing. On a VERY conservative estimate, there are well more than a million land going species on earth. According to your theory, a handful of people took care of all of them? Do you have any idea how much care many new borns take? Your baby theory doesn’t lead any credence to the story.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
As far as Noah – he took babies. You know small animals that eventually grew up and reproduced. Simple answer isn’t it? What do you think God is stupid and placed 100 ton animals on the Ark? How foolish!

Also, the Bible teaches that animals prior to the flood were not hostile to one another. This happend post-flood. Therefore, there would have been no problem on the Ark.
[/quote]
Actually animals became violent toward each other after Eve and the whole apple temptaion thing, so that blows holes out of that argument

Steve, let’s be honest, babies? I’d believe a giant ark holding adult species a hell of a lot sooner than I believe one holding babies.

Also, and it has been a while since I read the bible, but does it mention babies, from what I can remember it talks about the animals walking into the ark, I don’t recall it mentioning Noah going into the mountains of Pakistan to acquire snow leopard cubs, or maybe that is in the director’s cut?

Guys, Steve just told us that the story of Noah’s Ark is true and offered an explanation for it.

He really, really believes this.

Please stop arguing with him; he obviously has no idea what the word “science” means.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.

[/quote]

Steveo, I understand your need to be dominated over (that’s why my wife wears the pants…and the leather knickers).

For us scientist types it is real hard to accept an ordered nature, intelligently designed. The reasons are thus:

  1. Heisenberg Uncertainty tells us that we cannot know (measure) all attributes of any given situation because when we attempt to make a measurement we perturb the system. This principle applies to everything. While this is a fact to science (mathematically) it doesn’t mean we won’t attempt to understand something about the natural world around us. After all, knowing something is better than knowing nothing. Intelligent design leaves no room for uncertainty because there is nothing to prove or disprove; we just simply state what happened and leave it at that. Kind of like when you were a kid and you asked mom why the sky is blue and she responded, “Because God made it that way.”

  2. Evolution is fact; it has been observed. It is not an ordered process. This means it is not predetermined. It is random. There are many parameters that trigger change–this is evolution when it results in the change of a species genetically. Again, this has been observed.

After all is said and done you can build your own conclusions about accountability. Just because I do not believe in God does not mean I am unaccountable for my actions. Accountability has nothing to do with religion or God or Jesus. It has to do with accepting the consequence of our actions whether it be an eternity in Hell or life in prison, etc.

The absurdity of life is enough to make me believe there are no easy answers. While I am open minded about others beliefs I really do believe these beliefs tend to blind–mine included. The best we can do since we cannot know everything is to keep asking questions and not accept the world at face value. This does not preclude the existence of God.

long, but interesting reading:

5 reasons for the existence of God

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. "

Thomas Aquinas

I’ll belive anyone who can provide me with a Jesus Horse first.

And yes, I really don’t have anything constructive to contribute to these religion threads.

(Jesus Horse=Dino)

[quote]toughcasey wrote:
long, but interesting reading:

5 reasons for the existence of God

Thomas Aquinas
[/quote]

There is only one argument stated here: causality.

Furthermore, Aquinas didn’t understand the concept of motion enough to know that motion is not “casued” but a consequence of the fundamental forces of nature and the susbsequent laws derived by Newton.