*the doctor is in*

[/quote]It was a popular and widespread story...that does not make it true. What possible reason would anyone have for believing this now, in our modern age? I suspect it comes from the same source as the belief in Magic. People want to believe. As such, old stories can be accepted no matter how ludicrous they are. Do you accept the Garden of Eden as metaphor?[quote]

Have you ever witnessed something that cannot be explained by modern science? Ludicrous as it may seem at the time?

I have ...... What you call reality appears to be only what you can see. There is more to in then that. A great deal more.

It is not an issue of wanting to believe anything. Facts can speak for themselves. Base your decision on the facts. There has enough evidence that a court of law would rule in favor of Jesus Christ being who he claimed to be. A book published by the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune covers a good portion of this. The book is titled "A Case for Christ" and is a good read if a bit dry.

They were not just stories or metaphors but information collected from eyewitnesses just as the police do today. If you choose not to believe then that is your choice. The answers will be revealed when we die. Then you will know and understand and until then, if you are happy and at peace with yourself and the world, no one can fault you.

I believe in a literal translation of the bible. Science as we know it today supports it. I look at the facts and base my opinions on that. Not on how I feel or what I think may be correct.

No, i haven't and i question the validity of any story which people offer saying that something supernatural took place. None have stood up to scrutiny.

There is no hard evidence to support the belief that Jesus was anything more than a charismatic figure who inspired a cult following and myths around him. Like so many religious figures before and after him.

Stories collected from supposed eyewitnesses. We cannot prove those people were telling the truth, or even there. I do not believe simply because there is no good reason to. Why pick God over Zeus? Or Jesus over Mithras?

Science does not support: talking snakes; talking bushes that are ablaze; Adam and Eve; the flood; Jesus walking on water; the Creation; or any miracle Jesus performed. So to believe the above, you would need to want to.

Actually, science does support the flood. from geological evidence, to the mathmatics used for population census counts. Even the Fossil record supports the Flood. The Laws of Physics support Creation and defy evolution. Evolution is in direct conflict with the laws of physics: more specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

If you believe anthing in history to be true, then you have to accept what people have reported as having witnessed. There is more evidence supporting the acts of Jesus then there is for Alexander the Great. So by your logic, Alexander wasn't what history claims either.

I don't know where you got this idea that anything in science supports the flood, i can only assume you got it from Creationist sources. I'll tell you now, as a service to you as a reasonable and honest person, Creationist Science is not real Science. It is a collection of lies, misquotes and misunderstandings. Nothing more. The fossil record supports Evolution and in no way does it show any evidence of a global flood. The evidence for a global flood simply is not there. Certainly local floods happen, which is what the Bible must be making reference to.

The laws of thermodynamics are not breached by Evolution, both are solid science and therefore if one was conflicting with the other, there would be a major problem. As they do not conflict, there is no problem and so Evolution stands.

Alexander never did anything which defies the laws of nature, nor is anyone claiming he was the son of an all-powerful Universal Creator.

So when Mt St. Helens errupted in 1984, that was actually 24,000 years ago? The means that scientists use perform geological dating states that it occurred then.....I know I feel old but that is silly.

there is no proof in the fossil record to support evolution. No missing links, not indermediate lifeforms....nothing. Just great leaps from simple to complex lifeforms....violations of the laws of thermodynamics. violations of the laws of physics. violations of the laws of entropy. Mutation does not provide the answer as there is no evidence of a "beneficial" mutation. Again back to the laws of thermodynamics---the laws of physics


and what Alexander the great did is not the point, the fact remains that the deeds of Jesus are better documented the those of Alexander...they are better documented then most historical figures. Yet you accept the eyewitness reports for other people. Most historians do not try and explain what happened, just that they did happen.

It is silly when you consider the dating methods used are designed for samples of at least two million years old, yes. Not to mention that there are numerous dating methods used that place the age of the Earth in billions of years and agree on roughly the same figure, 4.5 billion years old.

Have you seen it!?

You should look at the progression of the primate line and then attempt to argue against Evolution.

None of those laws are violated. Such arguments against Evolution are simply false. Do not fall for Creationist misinformation. Also, read some Evolutionary texts and see what natural selection is all about. Don't let the term put you off, the idea is more complex and makes sense when you examine it.

I fully believe that stories about Jesus performing miracles spread and people claimed to witness them. I just don't believe they actually happened. Do not forget, we are talking about religious fanatics and superstitious people here.

How is it that evolution violates the law that energy cant be created or destroyed and the creationist view that God created the universe support it? I always thought they were both lacking in that area since the origins of the matter that imploded during the big bang were never explained (to me anyway) and God apparently has no origin either?

religious fanatics?...evolution is religion and is defended as such...

[/quote]You should look at the progression of the primate line and then attempt to argue against Evolution.
It is silly when you consider the dating methods used are designed for samples of at least two million years old, yes. Not to mention that there are numerous dating methods used that place the age of the Earth in billions of years and agree on roughly the same figure, 4.5 billion years old.
Have you seen it!? None of those laws are violated. Such arguments against Evolution are simply false. Do not fall for Creationist misinformation. Also, read some Evolutionary texts and see what natural selection is all about. Don't let the term put you off, the idea is more complex and makes sense when you examine it.
[quote]
I have read several of such texts. I wanted to weigh all the facts before I made any decisions. Each text I read made the same arguments and assumptions without giving logical reasons. They all are the same and ignore physics.

The 2nd law of physics discusses Entropy. The law of Entropy states that you cannot go from simple to complex. It states that the introduction of energy into a system increases the rate of entropy. How can this be used to justify a belief in evolution when every test to disprove this fails?

Evolution is not involved with the Big Bang but some people often link the two together in arguments against both. One argument against Evolution that misinformed Creationists use, is that thermodynamics means Evolution could not take place. This is not so. The Earth is not a closed system.

exactly...if it is not a closed system then energy is being introduced into it...Entropy states that when energy is introduced into a system, the rate of entropy increases.....defies evolution

Heh I just linked the two since they both do not fully explain the origin of life without violating or bending the 1st law, there`s always soemthing before life that was inexplicably just there. Outside of that I dont know how the first law could even be violated evolution. I dont see the creation or destruction of energy in the idea of the adapting nature of biological organisims but maybe I`m missing something.
Yeah I know its not a closed system what with energy being fed to us constantly and nature itself being a almost self regulating system. I have a hard time understanding why it could violate this law, I`ve always thought of evolution as a adapting system and one that would counter increasing entropy by itself.

the 2nd law is the big issue to be overcome. the very premise behind the law is that all things decay....all systems. Introducing energy into the system only speeds up the decay.

Systems can only go from complex to simple...no the onther way. So, at best, a system can only maintain and never improve

Evolution is a fact and there is also the 'Theory of Evolution', which is one of the best supported theories in science. Scientists defend it against false claims that it is incorrect and misinformation regarding it. No argument, scientific or religious has ever proven it wrong. It is not a religion, it is excellent science.

How then, do you explain Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and the other members of our evolutionary tree? Taking a different slant on your argument, why would your God create Neanderthals and Homo sapiens? What about our genetic similarity to other primates? Are we to believe that God used somewhere in the region of 97% of the dna he used to make chimps, to create his most beloved children?

All these dating methods reach the same estimated figure, yet you can just ignore this? You would prefer to believe the world is a matter of thousands of years old, despite all evidence to the contrary? That is blind faith for you.

Actually, i was talking about none of that. If you do a little research into the topic, you would see beyond the Creationist dogma. Actually look at the real fossil record, not their attempts to discredit it. Try real science first.

Very well, let me hear your interpretation of how Evolution goes against physics.

Actually, that is not what it states. An increase in energy into a system does not increase the rate of entropy, as long as the energy is spread out through the system. Being an open system, with energy coming in from the sun and being spread across the biosphere, this is not a problem.

Sure all systems decay if left to their own devices, but if a system adapts by either outside influence or by a natural ability then it overcomes that decaying process at least for a short while.
I dont think of evolution as a system of constant improvement, more of a way to survive.

I should add this, just in case you miss my point and misunderstand what i am saying. To move from simple to more complex forms requires energy, this we know. It is true that the introduction of energy into a closed system will cause it to increase in entropy and decay. With an open system, this is not the case. Energy can be taken and spread out to allow for complexity, just as what happens on our planet.