Altoid

Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 12:19 PM

Wow, I am surprised as well, 42% sounds rather low in favor of Evolution. It seems that either people believe in a belief (Hell, the devil, religion in general) or trust actual scientific theory based on facts (Evolution). I would be interested to see how many people in America actually believe in the "theory" of Intelligent Design, which isn't even a theory or even supportable by any evidence sans the beliefs of believers. Or if there is any degree if difference between those in favor Intelligent Design or Creationism, which are simply synonyms.

It is good that at least some of the 82% who believe in God (I'm inferring any of the big 3's almighty deity), also are scientifically correct in following Evolution. I wish I could understand why such a vast majority of religious people think the way that they do, I just can't wrap my head around ignoring irrefutable truths backed up by tons of evidence in favor of the magic designer in the sky ideal...

UFO's seem probable, but witches? Maybe on Halloween, but this is the 21st century, there's no need for this primitive mindset.

I think that the scale of the poll is flawed in putting out these results; only a few thousand is no where near a comprehensive enough number to display the beliefs of Americans with any degree of accuracy.

Anders

Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 12:23 PM

The thing about some of these polls...the types of people who participate in them...you have to wonder about the brain capacity of people who aren't smart enough to turn around and walk the other way when they see someone coming at them with a clipboard.

Rodney

Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 12:43 PM

Yeah I'm disappointed they didn't ask the intelligent design question, as well.

I'd like to see the research methodology, however and get a feel for how diverse the population they asked was.

Gilly

Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 02:56 PM

Wow witches dont exist http://www.tylwythteg.com/meet.html
and evolution is proven
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm
Why cant people accept that man does not have all the answers.
So everybody who has seen a UFO is a liar, they are making it up to seek attention or ridicule?
Wonder about the brain capacity of some people who are so arrogant to think anybody with a different opinion is stupid or retarded.
By the way, I dont know.

Jake

Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 03:24 PM

With so few studdied, it really doesn't hold any credence.

I would also be interested if the survey questions read, 'do you believe in' or 'do you accept that ... might...'

For example, I believe in UFO, but ufo just stands for unidentified flying objects, and I'm certain that various governments have the technology to produce aircraft that look entirely different to the mainstream, i.e. F-117 stealth bombers.

I find it inconceivable that given the immensity of the universe, we are alone, but don't necesseserily believe that these beings have visited earth.

Again, a few thousand is hardly representative of several hundred million.

Lauri

Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 07:00 PM

Uhhhh, why mark UFOs? The name sucks, yes, but it's seriously hard to believe that we are the only ones in the Galaxy. I'm not religious (well, not American either), I do believe in evolution, but I fail to believe in the power of humans. We're still so weak and know so little about the world so how can we be sure that the definitions that we have at the moment are true? Pardon me, but didn't we all believe just some centuries ago that the world is round and we're the center of the Universe? Humans have developed from that, but I still doubt we're smart enough to think that everything we've defined is really the way we see it.

And no, I don't believe in witches, but at the same time I don't believe in the way the "logical" people see the world just for the same reason I gave before. Basically everything can be for we're just too dumb to really say that everything can't be. :)

Joe Marco

Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 08:15 PM

On behalf of my fellow Americans I would like to clarify one main point with the study. It was actually one question that was asked.

"Do you believe, that IF, you were abducted by a UFO and transported straight to HELL, while witnessing the DEVIL having a meeting with WITCHES, concerning tomorrows ASTROLOGY report in the paper, that GOD in fact, would THEN, conduct MIRACLES to counteract the effects of EVOLUTION?"

We have found with one long confusing question, we can truly capture a sense of what my fellow Americans really believe to be true.

Keep in mind these are probably the same people who voted for Bush.

Altoid

Thursday 6th December 2007 | 08:47 AM

Well said Joe, and Gilly, why such a defensive tone? I don't know if you were attaching my comment or the article, but nonetheless I'll address each of your points.

Witches. Okay, there are people who call themselves witches, both in the past and today, but do you really think they possess any supernatural abilities? Bubble bubble, boil and trouble...eye of newt and essence of BS

As far as the link you posted about evolution is concerned, there are some serious flaws. First of all, transitional species have been discovered all across the board. Here's the transition from fish to reptile, with the scales and fin- like limbs of a fish but the flat head of a reptile, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/tiktaalik_f1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm%3Fmed_id%3D59664&h=220&w=350&sz=45&hl=en&start=11&tbnid=UedNujJi03v8RM:&tbnh=75&tbnw=120&prev=
And what about vestigial appendages? Useless limbs or other body parts inherited from earlier animals? Such as whales and other sea dwelling mammals having the remnants of legs, or even your hair standing on end when you get goosebumps; oddly similar to any furry animal poofing out it's fur to either look bigger or to stay warm, sound familiar?

Also, the origin of life is obviously based on the smallest forms of life, in our case, organelles, cells, and their ingredients (going down to the molecular and eventually atomic and sub-atomic levels), which are rather complicated and I don't feel like giving you too much of a Biology lesson.

Personally, I think it's entirely possible that we have been visited by UFO's. Considering the quadrillions of other planets in the Universe, thinking that only one of them is inhabited by intelligent life smart enough to understand and to question, is an incredibly naive way of thinking. What makes us so special?

And we certainly don't and probably never will have all the answers about anything and everything. There are simply too many variables in the game of life to fully comprehend all of them, at least at our level of intelligence and understanding. As Lauri said, just a few centuries ago we believed the world was flat, so what do we "know" now that will turn out to be false? I can foresee someone saying that could be the theory of Evolution, but I seriously doubt that, there is simply too much evidence to support it. Heard of DNA? Our Genome is over 98% identical to that of a chimpanzees, and yet we didn't evolve from them? Not even distant cousins? I find that to be incredibly improbable, and I could drone on and on and on about this subject, but I'll save that for a rantish blog someday.

And who said anything about being stupid or retarted? Gilly, who seem to be the only one here with a negative predisposition towards those with different opinions. I feel that everyone should explore new ideas and develop opinions, then, through rational argument and debate and much thinking through, realize what is right and what is wrong, and then iron out the flaws and find something new to think about.

This is basically a slap in the face to traditionalists, but where would the world be if no one challenged the concept of the earth being flat?

Gilly

Friday 7th December 2007 | 07:44 PM

Gosh! How can I answer that? Easy. Ba Bow (LOL)
I think it is just plane stupid to think man has all the answers.
Even with rational argument and debate all the answers wont be answered.
Your theory on evolution (SERIOUSLY SERIOUS FLAWS) does have holes, thats a fact.
Instead of typing proof of evolution in your search, type in problems with evolution. Its not black and white. Why cant you see that?
Altoid, the Bible states the earth is round, keep up please.
Witches. They say they do, You say they dont.

some people around these parts should go to a haunted house at night and feel the presence of the super natural. It does exist.

Altoid

Saturday 8th December 2007 | 08:27 AM

Thanks for not supporting your argument at all. There is scant few evidence to base this rebuttal on.

I never said man had all the answers, in fact I said the exact opposite (see last post, paragraph 6)

Evolution, a scientific theory based on a mountain of facts, isn't air tight, as all the evidence hasn't been discovered yet. Darwin thought up the theory years and years before the concept of genes and DNA were ever discovered. Both are accepted as fact and both fully support Evolution. I notice you didn't point out any of those "SERIOUSLY SERIOUS FLAWS", and I didn't search for support of evolution, just transitional species (and can you offer any rebuke of that? Or vestigal appendages? Or anything we inherited from our animal ancestors? Even cancer is an inherited disorder, I would love to hear some kind of rebuttal to any of those examples)

If the bible states the earth is round, then why did people believe the opposite even after the bible was published?

Again, witches. Can you point out any example of supernatural power in witchcraft, or anything in general supporting anything supernatural? And as far as haunted houses go, they are simply playing on people's fears. It's all mental; fearing or keeping calm, believing or judging, you only know what your 5 senses tell you...and that's it. How do you "know" you're not schizophrenic? How do you even "know" you're not dreaming? The same reason you "know" anything exists, including God, Buddha, the Sun, or whatever deity you subscribe to.

Gilly

Saturday 8th December 2007 | 04:45 PM

Ok Alt. Please explain to me why some Atheist scientists reckon anybody who believes in evolution is off with the fairies. In fact these god disbelieving scientists reckon evolution is, if not just as stupid as creation is probably even a more stupider idea?
No I am not going to tell you who and where cos I dont care what you want to believe.

Rodney

Sunday 9th December 2007 | 12:22 AM

If the bible states the earth is round, then why did people believe the opposite even after the Bible was published?

That would be because the Christian Bible doesn't say this. It's written in the Talmud - a component of the Jewish Bible, which the Catholics (the most powerful Christians of the day) utterly ignored.

Altoid

Sunday 9th December 2007 | 06:12 AM

That's interesting Rodney, is all of the Jewish Holy Book included in the "modern" Bible?

And this logical discussion is boiling down to a pointless argument, Gilly. Soften your tone or back up your facts.

The key word in your Atheist scientist non-evolutionists is "some" A vast majority of the scientific community (of all religions I might add) follow the science of Evolution.

Rodney

Sunday 9th December 2007 | 01:29 PM

Altoid, no on a few accounts. Firstly the King James bible is not exactly the same as the Jewish bible, aside from the many bad translations. Certain sentences have been left out, such as those which aren't conducive to Christianity.

However the Talmud, which is considered by Jews to be part of the Bible, is around 60 volumes (and they're big, thick books), so definitely, they're not included in the Christian bible, either.

Altoid

Monday 10th December 2007 | 03:25 AM

Ah, and all this time I had been lead to believe that Jews had "half a Bible" Seems like the Talmud is the heavyweight champ of Religious reading.

And to avoid translation errors, is the Talmud solely written in Hebrew?

Jake

Monday 10th December 2007 | 09:58 AM

Gill, I've not once met a scientist in any of the genetic fields that has not placed stock in evolution.

You may find a scientist who's line of study is mechanics who will openly oppose evolution, but obviously, their insigt means less than squat!

Rodney

Monday 10th December 2007 | 10:38 AM

Hi Altoid,

Generally any Jewish text (like just about everything these days) can be obtained in many languages. However they (nearly) always come with the Hebrew on the right page and the translation on the left page, so you can check the translation yourself. This Hebrew remains unchanged for as far back as we can find any written records. The most common English publisher (Artscroll) will indicate when there is a debate as to how to translate and offers all choices to the reader.

Without wanting to diverge too far from the topic of the story (but still trying to answer the question), the Talmud is considered essential to understanding the Bible. Without it, the Bible is easily misinterpreted and all kinds of crazy conclusions are arrived at (like hiding in a cave, waiting for the end of the World).

A key example is the old "an eye for an eye" passage, which relates to monetary compensation for negligence on behalf on an employer or land owner causing a worker to become injured. The employer would then have to pay the monetary value for the damaged body part (and this forms the basis for our modern legal system). Without the Talmud, many people have misinterpreted this passage to mean if someone hits you, hit them back! There are many more examples.

Gilly

Tuesday 11th December 2007 | 09:02 PM

The religion of evolution for the seriously mentally challenged. Science HA Ha Ha
There is still no proof. You are still creating scenarios to fit the theory. Darwin would be laughing at you fools. Even he stated there would have to be millions of fossils of species changing, not the half a dozen (if) week ones found found.
Piltdown man anybody?
DNA does not magicy magic from nothing. How foolish.
Rod, can you explain the millions and millions of Jewish people who have converted to Christianity.
The Dead sea scrolls have been found by the way. Why did it take the scholars so long to release the info. Hiding something?
Anybody who wants to check out the real facts, try wikipedia.

Rodney

Tuesday 11th December 2007 | 10:35 PM

Sure, I'll play.

Rod, can you explain the millions and millions of Jewish people who have converted to Christianity.

Yes, I can. They would be "idiots". By which I mean uneducated people, easily swayed to join the popular movement of the day. Seriously, most people converted "under the sword", which is hardly sincere now, is it? If it wasn't the sword, it was the fact that until very recently in Europe (as in only the last 100 years), Jews were not legally allowed to own property or hold virtually any other job. Hardly surprising that disassociated Jews left their religion behind, under those conditions, which were enforced by the "religion of love".

Now, to your baffling Wikipedia comment. The Dead sea scrolls have been found by the way. Why did it take the scholars so long to release the info. Hiding something?
Anybody who wants to check out the real facts, try wikipedia.

So you know for next time, Wikipedia says "...The Dead Sea scrolls consist of roughly 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956...".. It then goes on to say the first photos of them were published in 1948 (a few months after discovery). Then it says, "all of the writing found in Cave 1 appeared in print between 1950 and 1956".

So, what's your point? Where's this delay in releasing the info? When you want to make a point and quote a source, it helps if you read that source, before making the assumption.

Gilly

Tuesday 11th December 2007 | 11:06 PM

And what were the findings, Rod?
1948-1956, doesnt sound like next day service.Cave 1? this is becoming silly.
No Rod dont blame the sword for all the Jews converting. Funny how Christ was put to death by his own people.
and Rod, still waiting on the Messiah?
Yes, I am going to make vague baseless and inane comments just like you.
Hay, Look at those pretty lights in the sky.

Here is a tip everybody. Go study the facts, dont listen to the so called experts with there vested interests. Go find the facts.

Rodney

Tuesday 11th December 2007 | 11:50 PM

Next day service? Man, it takes time to release academic findings - but they published the results just as quick as they could. I mean, hell, there was a buck to be made in it, you think they waited around?

You talk about people going and finding the truth but after over a year you haven't substantiated a single thing. Just vague references to sites that mean nothing and telling us "you're not going to waste your time". Well, you're wasting your time by repeatedly telling us how much we don't know and how much you do know so instead, go spend 5 more minutes on your next post and come back with some harder evidence.

Funny how Christ was put to death by his own people.
and Rod, still waiting on the Messiah? Wtf has that got to do with anything? Firstly, the ROMANs put him to death but strangely enough the ROMAN catholic church wasn't too keen on that little bit so they pushed it into the back ground and put up someone else to blame.

Then, yes, we are still waiting on the Meshiac, as you see, according to your Bible, he hasn't come yet.

So if we're going to wade miles off topic, let's do it properly, shall we?

I now reiterate from a previous conversation you and I have had (by cut and paste, see article: http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=481).

I now quote directly from the Bible - the very same one you read. Here are the direct requirements for being the Messiah. You tell me how many Jesus meets. Your own Bible, remember.

1. First of all, he must be Jewish - “…you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)
- Ok, score one for Jesus.

2. He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - “The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet…” (Genesis 49:10)
- To be a member of a tribe your FATHER must have been, also. Jesus ‘didn’t have a father’.

3. He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - “And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever…” (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)
- Again, the miracle birth is getting you into trouble, here. Notice the line “set up your seed after you”, so he really must descend from David’s seed. The Kingly line can descend ONLY from male to male.

4. He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel - “And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:12)
- I’m a Jew and I live in Australia. So far, we’re 1 from 4.

5. He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - “…and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them..” (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
- The Temple is not yet rebuilt. The land is currently occupied by a Mosque.

6. He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - “…they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war any more.” (Micah 4:3)
- War is most definitely still happening.

7. He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d’s commandments - “My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes.” (Ezekiel 37:24)
- Many Jews, especially in the US, are not observant. Christianity actively discourages observance of Biblical law.

8. He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - “And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd” (Isaiah 66:23)
- Again, definitely hasn’t happened.

So, out of 8, Jesus scores 1. Now, they’re the bare minimum requirements for even starting to look like the Messiah, so how come you believe he was?

9. The Bible clearly states that “(Deuteronomy 4:2) “You shall not add to the word that I commanded you, nor shall you subtract from it.” and yet all the ‘proof’ that Jesus was the messiah is *added* after the Torah finishes. Therefore, if one wishes to observe the word of God, they either need to accept that the new testament is made up, or that God somehow got it wrong and had to change his mind and therefore isn't omnipotent. Either way, Christianity is screwed.

Now, Gilly, don't just blow this off with pathetically dodging the issue. Take 5 minutes from your busy life to defend your faith and try and explain it to us all, in the light of those 9 points. Spend 30 seconds a point explaining how Jesus is the Messiah, without having to quote from sources beyond the "old testament". If you dodge the questions as usual, we'll all just assume you have no answers and are too afraid to even attempt to back up your own beliefs.

So come on. here's a genuine chance to say something constructive - don't let us down.

Altoid

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 09:58 AM

Nice comeback Rod,

This is why I joined this site, intelligent argument of real world issues. Now if only Gilly will say something constructive (which I severely doubt considering her track record)

Sorry to take the spotlight away from Judisim vs Jesus, but I feel I should address some of Gilly's comments thrown my way. (Concerning Evolution)"There is still no proof. You are still creating scenarios to fit the theory. Darwin would be laughing at you fools" Have you even read my last handful of posts? Have you taken a high school biology class? Have you simply skimmed over those posts of mine without considering for a moment that I may have done my research (something you should try doing sometime). I'm sorry if I come across as attacking your beliefs, but it's high time you start backing up your position with something concrete.
"DNA does not magicy magic from nothing. How foolish." How foolish indeed, I have tried to stray from giving you a lesson on the basics of life, but you've earned it (though I doubt you will little more than skim over these words) DNA is composed of the nucleic bases Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine, they are bonded together by Hydrogen bonds and are twisted into a double helix design. Those four bases (which are composed of nucleic acids) make up the genes that compose our entire genome (that thing that we share 98% with chimps, that you STILL haven't addressed with any credence). There, I could go on and on and on about the role that mRNA, DNA Polymerase, and genes and many more topics, but I doubt it'd be worth my time.

And the especially offensive (and misinformed) "The religion of evolution for the seriously mentally challenged. Science HA Ha Ha" Say those words to an actual scientist (you know, those people that discover all that stuff about life, the Universe and Everything) and be prepared to look like a complete laughing stock.

Anyway, sorry to take the fire away from the already pursuing debate. Argue on. (insert boxing ring bell here)

Gilly

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 12:17 PM

From a site where Jews have accepted that Christ is the Messiah

A list of references of OT prophesies with the NT fulfillments

* Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
* A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
* Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
* Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
* Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
* Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
* Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
* Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
* Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5;
Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
* Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
* Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
* Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16)
* Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
* Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
* Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
* Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
* Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
- rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
- betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
- sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
- silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
- being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
- beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
- spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
- piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
- being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
- praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
- piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
- given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
- no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
- buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
- casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
* Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
* Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
* Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

Here is an interesting article on the odds of the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies without the hand of G-D
http://www.allabouttruth.org/messianic-prophecy-2.htm

I would like you to note that all the prophecies are not yet fulfilled.
The Mosque is not on the Temples site. The wailing wall is the old guards barracks. I could be wrong on that, but there is plenty of evidence.
Pointless isnt it Rod?

Altoid

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 12:29 PM

Thanks for completley ignoring my comment, but that's unfortunately what I've come to expect from you...

Rodney

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 12:43 PM

First up, thankyou for responding and actually putting "pen to paper" (as it were) to respond for once.

However, yes, this is completely pointless. Here's why:

Your references above quote things like Mathew, Mark, John the Baptist, etc. I already pointed out that the Bible (YOUR Bible) says anything added after the the Old Testament cannot be accepted. Yet you quote stuff written thousands of years later as "proof". Can't you see that using that as proof clearly violates your own Bible? As I mentioned, this means either the old testament of the Bible is wrong or the new testament is made up - the two simply cannot co-exist.

Then you go and make references to "The house of David", etc... which as I've already pointed out, Jesus couldn't possibly have been a member of. Because *he didn't have a father*. Same goes for the Tribe of Judah. Membership of a house / tribe flows from the *father's* side.

Then, you make baffling quotations like "beaten". Beaten! Is that it? You're going to use a single word from a sentence as proof? I can take any single word from any sentence and use it as proof of things, now?

"piercing His hands and feet" is simply comical. This "reference" from psalms refers to David as feeling like lions are at his feet, metaphorically. This was later intentionally mistranslated to be "piercing feet" then the hands bit was just plain added, years later again. When you have to re-write the Bible to make it say what you want, it's no longer the Bible, is it now.

So in effect, you're actually disproving your own religion. Congratulations on that.

Gilly

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 12:52 PM

The 98% thing with Chimps part?
How can I argue that type of logic?
or
The super smart intelligent scientists (laughing at me) who still with all the tools and knowledge they have at there disposal cant CREATE the most basic life form other than from already existing life.
No Alt I cant find an answer.
You research Chimp and Human DNA Alt and you tell me what is so wrong about that ridiculous theory.
or go to the local crematorium and run your hands through some dust, is that man dust or Chimp dust, there will be no difference, 100% the same I bet, What is your point?
How often do you shave?
You tell me about Piltdown man and stop clutching at straws.
98% still leaves 2%.Where is that bridge of 99%. Until we have evidence of that bridge you are guessing. Find it and then we will have another look.
Evolution the Fairy tale.
PROOF?
Happy now?

Rodney

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 12:53 PM

"The Mosque is not on the Temples site. The wailing wall is the old guards barracks. I could be wrong on that, but there is plenty of evidence. "

No, actually, there's a massive volume of evidence that the western wall *is* the western wall of the old Temple complex. In fact, so much evidence that it's not just the common understanding it's *the* understanding. The only people who deny it's existence always follow up with a spot of holocaust denial, too.

Since we're so fond of wiki (well, hell, it is pretty good):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall

Anyway. This thread's dead. We seriously need a "catch-all" religion discussion thread to stop this happening all the time....

Gilly

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 01:01 PM

So you argue over a few words and call yourself the winner.
Well you are the winner Rod.
You are still waiting on your messiah and call me a fool. Pointless exercise for me really wasnt it.
and you wonder why I cant be bothered answering your questions?
Lions at his feet, Come on.
Added things, No wonder the Jews wouldnt release the scrolls.

Altoid

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 01:05 PM

Well, I'll give this dead horse one last smack; that 99%? Right here http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
Even you should have heard of Homo erectus, Neanderthals, etc. And what type of logic are you referring to?

And surprisingly, your last comment had a shred of intelligence, monkey dust and human dust would be pretty close to 100% identical (we are all carbon based after all).

But why don't you support anything you say?! You're missing the most basic aspect of having an intelligent discussion; make a claim (premise) and back it up with evidence. You excel at making paper thin premises, but they don't have a leg to stand on. Look, I'm getting as bad as you. This thread has died after all.

RIP

Gilly

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 01:09 PM

2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Commands?

Rodney

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 01:18 PM

Haha you're missing your (lol), Gilly, so we know you're joking? "The Jews wouldn't release the scrolls"? Go READ something, for goodness sakes.

First found by Muslim tribesmen, they were then held by George Isha'ya, a member of the Syrian Orthodox Church (a Christian). They then passed to the American School of Oriental Research (secular group). They were then published by Father Roland de Vaux, a member of the Dominican Order (Christian).

Gilly.
Seriously now.
Instead of basing your view of the World on stuff you hear on the street and read on Weeties packets, try researching stuff for once. You're online - it's not that hard.

As for "argue over a few words and call yourself the winner". Yes; that would be the point of the argument. If you recall, we were in fact talking about words. Your *words* actually damage your own argument, so rather than face the message you simply avoid it.

I don't call you a fool; you're the only one here doing that. I do however say you lack the information to adequately back up your argument and you lack the conviction in your belief to even attempt to seriously defend it, instead you dodge questions.

Gilly

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 01:34 PM

http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/templelocation.php
Here is a bit of speculation regarding the Temples position, no doubt you have heard it.
Seriously Rod, I accuse everybody else of the same thing you accuse me of here.
Weeties packets. You are a winner.
Hope you are proud of yourself.

Rodney

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 01:44 PM

Yes, thanks for proving my point. The only people who deny the Temple was Jewish and based at the Western Wall are the kind of idiots who deny the Holocaust and it's blatantly obvious what their real agenda is.

Look, any real academic, even secular ones, understands this. It's not a secret. The Temple was burned by the Romans. The Romans documented it, the very location. There are undeniable archaeological proofs indicating the various gates, etc and how they fit into the Wall. This is like arguing whether or not ancient Rome existed. It's not even up for contention.

Look, Gilly. If you want to accuse us of having no "proof" of evolution, then so be it. However we are trying to show what we find to be fairly strong indicators to support the theory. All we ask is that when you argue back, provide some *substance*.

Gilly

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 02:33 PM

SUBSTANCE RIGHT BACK AT YA

Jake

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 02:44 PM

Rodney, do you know which book and paragraph containing the text *paraphrasing* stating that the new testament of the bible was falacy/not to be trusted?

Rodney

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 03:04 PM

Sorry, Jake can you please rephrase the question, if I misunderstood?

I think you're asking which section says that you cannot add / subtract from the Bible - that would be Deuteronomy 4:2.

“You shall not add to the word that I commanded you, nor shall you subtract from it. The whole New Testament then proceeds to "add" to the words and "subtract" from commandments, thus self-invalidating itself, as it includes Deuteronomy.

Or perhaps you're asking about the bit which says you mustn't trust a person who comes along and performs "miracles" and then tells you to go against the word of the Old Testament.

Here, the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:1-5) says:
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder .... you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer".

See here the issue is that the Christian Bible is self-disproving. One one hand they've tried to include the Hebrew Bible, then they've added to it without actually reading it, apparantly, so they wind up with a book which outright states that either the 2nd half of the book is invalid or the first half of the book is. Either way, the whole thing falls over at this point...

Altoid

Wednesday 12th December 2007 | 03:19 PM

"SUBSTANCE RIGHT BACK AT YA" wtf? Can you read? Obviously you have a hard time with it, as Rod's comment was nothing but substance.

Jake

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 09:27 AM

Thanks Rodney, I was after the first part.

Altiod, give Rodney some credit please, yes there was substance there but there was also, clearly pazazz and charisma.

Altoid

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 01:27 PM

Sorry, I'll give him even more credit then; your comments have consistently been solid and based on some thinking through, something I can't say for certain other members of this thread...

Gilly

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 09:01 PM

So Rod, there can be no Messiah? There is nothing else to add to Judaism? I truly dont understand why you would be a Jew then.
The OT didnt prophecy a Messiah? Didnt mention a miracle worker? Wont allow for anymore other than the end at Malachie or whatever you think is the end of your Talmud?
Old Testament Ends so does everything else.
Seems pointless?
Good to see all those intelligent people lapping up your words ay Rod?
Alt Rod and Jakie, I could not care less about winning arguments, I am not saying weather something is correct or wrong. I am just giving alternatives. You seem to have it all boxed up so nicely though.

Rodney

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 09:17 PM

Gilly, thanks for offering us your alternatives. They're most enjoyable. :-)

Gilly

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 09:25 PM

So there is nothing else then?
Bit smug.
I am just asking:=)
cos clearly I dont know?

Rodney

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 09:53 PM

Gilly, it depends. I'm happy to answer questions with genuine intent. But if it's just going around in circles, what's the point?

So I'll answer, briefly.

Yes, Jews wait on a Messiah. But not a "Son of God" kind - just a normal, regular man, nothing more or less. Sorry if that's too boring for you but there you have it. You also wait on your Messiah to come back, so what's the difference? For now you're also correct that there's nothing to add. There's nothing to add to your books either, so again - no difference.

Anyway, I really do enjoy your posts. You get the conversation going and that's what discussion sites are all about.

Gilly

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 10:41 PM

So briefly, when he shows up nobody is going to write anything down.
Isnt the Messiah a healer or something? Thats right Isaiah 35 to 50 odd isnt about a Messiah anymore is it.
Just a normal bloke who will redeem Israel?
Not even worth noting in any texts or anything, probably not even worth waiting for really.
Christ was rejected by the Jews. The NT is a new Book. Separate from yours. We are apart from the Jews, from the Old Testaments laws. Christ is the new law. We read your history, but it does not represent us.
Psalm 2 talks about a Messiah who is a little more than a normal Bloke, but?

Rodney

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 11:23 PM

No, it doesn't talk about some Son of God Messiah. It talks about it's author, David. As in Dovid ha Melech - King David. But you've decided to read the (terrible) English translation and pretend it's about something else. When David wrote introspective poetry, just as so many others in history have in periods of internal turmoil, you decided it must mean Jesus was the son of God.

You call our books history that doesn't represent you, when it suits you, but you call them Bible at other times, when it does suit you - I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. Something as fundamental to the discussion as the Bible can't be chopped and changed as the argument moves along.

You live by the "10 commandants" (from the Hebrew Bible) but the very first of these is "I am the Lord your God who brought your out of the land of Egypt, the house of Bondage, to be a God to you". Clearly, these are not *your* 10 commandments. These are the commandments of a people enslaved in Egypt.

But hey, it's irrelevant. You're not going to convert me and I am not going to convince you, nor do I desire to. Likewise, no one is going to read this post and change their ideology of anything (nor should they!).

It doesn't change the fact that I really do enjoy your posts (most of the time) because you keep the conversation lively.

Gilly

Friday 14th December 2007 | 12:19 AM

Ten Commandments Hey! No not I. As I said I am not a Jew. They are good commandments and stuff, but.
I also call the OT part of the Bible (book?). I dont live by your rules. I can eat pigs, mmmmmm Bacon, Pork Chops, you are missing out. Absolutely anything I want food wise, actually. Crayfish and Crabs mmm. Enough. Kosha whats Kosha? (rhetorical)
King Dave sung lotsa stuff from lots of perspective, thats an argument, doesnt bother me. Plenty of Jews use to believe it was about the Messiah.
Rod you think you know what I believe. You think like a lot of people around here that you understand Christianity, that is so wrong.
I expect you like most others here have never read the NT. Your understanding of Christianity is skewed by so many Religions based on mans lies not the Bibles teachings. Ahh Bibles teachings not mans.
I dont worship Mary or Saints, pray to statues, kiss a priests hand, knock on doors, baptise children, not work Sundays wear white undies blah blah. No I am not a try- ing to be Jew, waving ten commandments around either.
You are wrong
You told me Messianic Jews could not be Jews
Well a lot of Christians are not Christian.

Sebastian

Friday 21st December 2007 | 05:20 AM

I hate to bring up this now oft repeated phrase - Evolution is both a theory and a fact. What's that mean? Well, as always, gravity tends to be the best example.

Most people would tend to agree gravity exists. Gravity is, therefore a fact. There are theories as to why and what gravity is, including Einstein's theory of space-time curvature, as well as BasementGuy17's theory of tiny gnomes which pull you towards the ground.

Likewise, it seems that, for some reason or another, animals have been turning into other animals over millions of years. This is the fact of evolution. The theories of evolution try to say why this happened. One guy, named Darwin, suggests natural selection. Now, you could argue that things just happened to spawn here in such a way that they all appear to come from similar ancestry, but that's just as good as the gnome theory.

Evolution, a fact and a theory.

Doug

Friday 21st December 2007 | 05:46 AM

Saying that "the poll isn't terribly comprehensive - only surverying a few thousand people from across the country" betrays a distressing ignorance of statistical theory on the part of the author. Assuming an accurate cross-section of the population is used, a sample as small as 1100 is statistically valid no matter how large the overall population. Using a larger sample than that will not change the result, though it could reduce the margin of error.

Note that this page lists a number of concerns for determining sample size, but population size is not one of them.

Doug

Friday 21st December 2007 | 05:47 AM

Whoops, guess I shouldn't have tried to embed that link. Here it is:

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/ppc/section3/ppc333.htm

hoyman

Friday 21st December 2007 | 05:56 AM

their american. enough said

Hatter

Friday 21st December 2007 | 08:12 AM

I would like to state that a good deal of Christians that I've met (mainly in my mother's church) actually do believe in Intelligent Design- the most unanimous vote I've heard from them (some 50-75 people, might be too small a sample though) is that god set things in motion for Evolution, and that the Creation Story is merely a parable, akin to The Good Samaratin. They also believe that their beliefs shouldn't be taught in schools. And this is Texas, people! Where are all the nutballs hiding? I'm looking at you, Alabama.

Personally, I'm a militant Agnostic- I don't know and you don't know either.

Raymond

Friday 21st December 2007 | 11:23 AM

What a nice little debate going on in the comments... nothing like a couple of humans and a troll (Or an idiot, but I lean towards troll, personally) having a nice, intelligent discussion interrupted by bursts of pure bs.
Really though, the site is pretty interesting, and I plan on checking it out more. Who says you don't get permanent viewers from Stumbleupon?

Red Rocket

Friday 21st December 2007 | 11:29 AM

Human Beings are very stupid. I think a lot of people in America are so clueless about the world and will believe anything you tell them. Aliens and witches are in movies so much they have to be real, right?

Rodney

Friday 21st December 2007 | 11:37 AM

Hi Doug,

As the author, I can see your point and admit I was a little flippant in my final comment. My key issue with the sample of people I that nothing is published about them at all - they could have been people in a single shopping mall, people from a single school, people from a Church carpark or people from all across the country (although I don't agree 0.0003% is a sufficient sample size to make a firm claim).

So while the article is interesting enough to comment on and have a look at, it's not worth basing your entire opinion of all people from that country on.

I find the comment by 'hoyman' to most telling. "their american. enough said". Always good for a laugh when someone who can't spell tries to deride other people's intelligence. :-)

Ish.

Friday 21st December 2007 | 12:55 PM

So people aren't allowed to believe in extra-solar life now?

That's totally cool, right?

And, here's the worst, THEY'RE RELIGIOUS? A country founded on the principles of religious freedom? And a lot of Americans...religious? Simply outrageous. A travesty.

As for miracles. Do you have any proof to show that they DON'T exist?

CC

Friday 21st December 2007 | 07:55 PM

I believe I actually participated in that poll (I get bored and take polls online for the hell of it) and I actually really hesitated on "witches." Because no, of course I don't believe in witches in the black cat, pointy hat, devil worshipper sense, but I know that there are a few pagan sects whose followers call themselves witches. So therefore I believe in witches, because I know those people do in fact exist.

Though I doubt that most of the people who participated in the poll had that thought process.

Gilly

Friday 21st December 2007 | 10:14 PM

I like this

Sebastian Sebastian Sebastian
Quote
Likewise, it seems that, for some reason or another, animals have been turning into other animals over millions of years. This is the fact of evolution. The theories of evolution try to say why this happened. One guy, named Darwin, suggests natural selection. Now, you could argue that things just happened to spawn here in such a way that they all appear to come from similar ancestry, but that's just as good as the gnome theory.

Evolution, a fact and a theory.
End quote

Micro Evolution V Macro Evolution Blah
A scientist you dont make
Please Mate. I can actually accept that God coulda started the ball rolling and evolution took over from there. That would be so easy and simple, cept there is still no proof PROOF. Until anybody can prove a whale can turn into a big rat type creature (West Australian 21/12/07) its a croc of silly nonsense.
Sebastian where is your proof. Silly Boy or Girl?
PROOF

Les

Saturday 22nd December 2007 | 03:04 AM

Life is an amazing thing. So is imagination. What is truth? For the analytical mind it is based on substantiation or sensory perception of the tangible. Yet, for many others, it is based on FAITH which by its very definiton can not be argued with. Come on folks. The whole religious debate going on up there is SO pointless. There are just different types of people. Those who choose to believe in what they can see, feel and experience first hand. And those that choose to believe what they have been brainwashed (indoctrinated) with. Also it seems that every time I come across one these discussions, without fail, the person with the faith based point of view will always attempt to prove their point of view by asking for a negative proof. Which of course is laughable. Just truly try to disprove the existence of anything.

MikeC

Saturday 22nd December 2007 | 04:01 AM

May I ask a question, Gilly? How much time have you spent studying evolution and its processes? Or how much background do you have in the natural sciences, in general?

My guess is not very much, because many of these pseudo-poignant questions you are trying to raise have been answered many times over in the scientific field. The problem is that - when trying to explain it to someone who lacks a basic foundation of scientific knowledge - it inevitably goes right over their head. This leads to misunderstandings about fossil records and the completely illogical assertions that there is no, "PROOF" available.

There is plenty of evidence. Mountains of it, from the molecular/genetic level regarding base pair synteny all the way up to large-level speciation on the Galapagos, and even further into to theoretical predictions about the pace of evolution under certain environmental pressures. This is a far-reaching theory that has withstood countless attempts to falsify it. If any one of those attempts were successful, the theory would be shot. Kaput. But, as of yet, none of those attempts have been successful, and it is still, by far, the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet.

I think what this ultimately comes down to is that you don't WANT to know about evolution. You aren't interested in learning. You just want it to be wrong. When one point of yours is refuted, you will ignore it, or move on to another meaningless point of contention that has nothing to do with the reality of how much and what kinds of data is available regarding evolutionary studies.

jenni

Saturday 22nd December 2007 | 04:53 AM

I don't think UFOs go into the witch and astrology category. By the way, witches do exist. There are people who practice witchcraft and wiccancraft. These people are called witches. Whether or not what they do is really magic is another story. No, they don't fly around on magic brooms, wave there magic wands or have giant warty noses. They are people who practice an ancient art that has been around for centuries.

I don't consider their beliefs anymore magical or fanatic than Christianity. People believe in a book that says there was night and day before a sun and moon was made, the earth was made in 6 days, man is superior to women, that people like Hitler were put into power for a good reason and that a magical man came down to save our souls. I call that ignorant.

Now onto UFOS. We live in a universe where there are millions of other planets that are able to sustain life like ours, to think we are alone is what I call fantastic. Since there IS life out there, I'm sure life far more advanced than us have been traveling the cosmos.

We have our flying machines, why wouldn't another creature in our universe get that same idea, especially if it has evolved longer than us? UFO means unidentified flying object, we see these everyday, in the most literal sense. People do see things in the sky that are not planes, jets or helicopters. To say they are all spacecrafts is of course silly. There are reasonable explanations for what these things really are, not being alien spacecrafts.

I can't say if we have been visited by an alien race or not. I think it's pretty bold to say there definitely has or that there definitely hasn't. I'm sure there is a way for creatures with an intense knowledge of technology and physics, that we are too inferior to discover yet, to get here. It is probably possible to bend space time around a spacecraft, which would enable it to move faster than light. Perhaps aliens have learned how to travel though wormholes or though an aspect of space we have yet to discover.

Sure, it's silly to think we always seeing UFOs(spacecrafts). How do you know that one of them didn't actually happen to be one?

Doug

Saturday 22nd December 2007 | 06:05 AM

Rodney,

> I don't agree 0.0003% is a sufficient sample size to make a firm claim).


I guess you didn't read the link.

Altoid

Saturday 22nd December 2007 | 09:06 AM

I'll take a stab at providing you some "PROOF" of Evolution, Gilly, though as was pointed out earlier, it will probably be to no avail.

I hate to use your own words against you, but when you typed the word "PROOF" you used your dexterous fingers and then thumb(s) for the following space. Now how did you do that?! Could it have something to do with part of the FACT that part of our 98% identical inherited genome with a chimp includes finger dexterity and opposable thumbs?

And I could go on and on about all the other things we've inherited from our ancestors (from mitochondria dating back to the earliest sea-dwelling life forms, and beyond), but you shall probably scoff, and then type a misinformed comment about how childish, foolish I am, or any other demeaning adjective contained in your apparently limited vocabulary.

jenni

Saturday 22nd December 2007 | 09:58 AM

Don't even bother arguing with those who don't know the difference between faith and facts. They are afraid of Hell more than they are afraid of being uneducated. Most Christians don't even know that their faith is a revised version of Roman Catholicism, called Protestantism, which was formed thanks to an Anti-Semitic "revolutionary" named Martin Luther, as a revolt against the Catholic Church. It was in 1517 when Martin Luther started his activities that brought on the Protestant Reformation. Many of his ideas were not in sync with the Church's ideas about celibacy, purgatory and Mary. He also wanted Jews to be thrown out of their homes, their synagogues burned, their money taken away and murdered, the Roman Catholic Church wasn't into that as they were too busy raping poor people and atheists, so he decided to start a new religious movement, Protestantism, which a good portion of Americans today don't know they believe in. Martin Luther was a very wicked man, not too unlike Adolf Hitler. It was his beliefs that fueled Hitler's regime against the Jews. THANK YOU MARTIN LUTHER! Thank you for the Holocaust and hundreds of years of Christian murderers and oppressors! And thank you for all the ignorant Christians who infest the world with their hate.

Gilly

Sunday 23rd December 2007 | 05:41 PM

Sorry Jenni, some very good Christian churches came from North Africa and the middle East. These churches were not destroyed by the catholic crusades and operate still today. Not even remotely related to Catholicism.
I am sure Baptist churches stem from pre Catholicism years
True Martin Luther was not a very great Christian?, but he did end the Catholic churches strangle hold over Europe.
Yes only Europe, Christianity is not only a European thing as you have been led to believe. Rome does not own Christ.
Uneducated? Have you ever read Gods word?

Gilly

Sunday 23rd December 2007 | 05:44 PM

Hey Altoid, I only use my pointing fingers to type.
You know Alt,you can start a jigsaw puzzle from the top and work down.

Altoid

Monday 24th December 2007 | 09:03 AM

True, but you have to examine each piece with care to see what it fits into. But, unlike a jigsaw puzzle, human issues are never seen as a complete picture conveniently placed on the box for a helpful glance now and then. We have the pieces and a general idea of what they mean, but can never work backwards from solution to problem. This is why people make up things to help them comprehend, or pretend to comprehend the big picture; from scientific hypothesis, to everyday educated guess, to giver of all life in the sky.

Good metaphor. Bad typing habit.

Jake

Monday 7th January 2008 | 11:52 AM

Gilly, no matter how much you wish to seperate catholocism from christianity, the crusades were a campaign undertaken by christians, thus they were the christian crusades, not the catholic.

There were thousands of god fearing people, just like you, who were doing what they believed to be correct based on the best advice given to them by their spiritual superiors. No matter how superficial those titals were, they were people of christ, following christ's will. They are part of your history as a christian.

In the end, while I may not believe in UFOs (piloted by beings from another world who visit earth), witchcraft, immaculate conception, superior omnipotent beings and piercing my penis for greater stimulation does not mean that I do not believe that there are people out there that do believe it.

Why Gilly, Rodney, do you believe in a god? Is it tradition and indoctrination or have you actually met the thing?

I believe in what I can touch, taste, see, etc.

Rodney

Monday 7th January 2008 | 01:21 PM

Jake, I come from a non-religious family. Completely such. I never once attended a synagogue/church/whatever while growing up. My parents come from mixed affiliations of backgrounds, religiously and don't have any beliefs. Therefore I am clearly not following indoctrinations of any kinds as everything I have learnt I have come across for the first time, by myself. I grew up with no traditions, no affiliations. I went to a state primary school and an Anglican high school, yet I am an orthodox Jew - indoctrination is hardly the thing, for me.

So have I "met the thing" - of course I haven't met some character out of a movie. I'm not going to be lame-arse either and say "I have met him in my heart" coz that kind of talk is just annoying. I have my beliefs for my reasons.

However you only believe on what you can see and touch. I guess you don't believe in a fair go? Love? Trust? Honesty? Justice? What do they look like? How do they feel?

Jake

Monday 7th January 2008 | 02:15 PM

I take your point, perhaps I should have said something that I can prove or experience or something that is most likely based on accumulated research.

My point was though that you may not believe in those above things, but surely you can acknowledge that some people do, no doubt for a similar reason to why you believe your god exists.

Gilly

Monday 7th January 2008 | 09:27 PM

OK Jake.

bobsaround

Monday 14th January 2008 | 11:15 AM

I know I'm gettin' in late here. But its quite clear to me as an American, that Americans will believe anything. Especially if they see it on T.V.

And dats da trooth...


hey look...its Gilly, the creation expert from URL:

http://www.rustylime.com/rss.php?article=1106

didnt you get tried for plagerism?

Gillon

Monday 7th April 2008 | 08:24 PM

Yes bobsaround,

Sadly, she is still around. After her first discovered phony attempt at sounding able to ask intelligent questions, I have tracked several of her comments. It turns out that much of her work is not hers. Just take anything she says that sounds halfway smart, put it in your googler, and up come her words on a christian site.

What I cant figure out is why does she spend so much time on R.L. which is most definitely a site for the non religious types. I sense much pent up anger and hostility in her. And by the way, Gilly was indeed tried and hug for plagiarism in another thread, but three days later she rose from the dead. God told her in no uncertain terms to continue her good fight against the heathen atheist’s on Rusty Lime. And so it goes. Personally, I wish she would go away.

Jake

Tuesday 8th April 2008 | 06:34 AM

I haven't seen the Gillmeister on here for quite a while and I got the impression 'she' was a man.

I personally don't give a hoot where he/she got the material from, I don't understand why you care, he/she provides a christian perspective to an otherwise one-sided argument.

dave_p

Thursday 1st May 2008 | 03:55 AM

...in response to this comment by Altoid. Altoid, I don't agree with your first post there, you call evolution "scientific fact", lol...
Why, cause I scientist told you so? Now I'm comming off as ignorant, but don't dismiss 'god/aliens/what have you'.