In 2010 Bishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa declared that the time had come, particularly for Africans, to stop the “wave of hate” and to stand up “against wrong”.

Stories of women infected by their husbands are all too common.

He was referring to the wrong to “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people” who are “part of the African family” and who “are living in fear.”

This news from Africa would be bad enough. But the same fear extends far beyond that continent.

And in the struggle against HIV/AIDS, which has afflicted humanity since the 1980s, the vulnerable are not only gays but also sex workers, injecting drug users (IDUs) and women.

This fear exists in many countries where, despite the knowledge that science now affords us about human sexuality, irrational hatred of sexual minorities and sexual activities is encouraged and even sometimes promoted by religious leaders, in supposed reliance upon their understandings of religious texts.

They rely on their imperfect understanding of what was written in ancient books long before Dr. Alfred Kinsey, American biologist and founder of the Institute of Sex Research, demonstrated the realities of human sexual experience, the frequency and variety of its manifestations, and the dangers and injustice of punishing people for adult, private, consensual sexual conduct.

Most religious people are good and kind. Love for one another exists as a basic tenet in all religions and all cultures. I have myself been brought up in religious faith. I honour brothers and sisters in all religions who are struggling to make a charitable, informed and unbiased contribution to the global struggle against HIV/AIDS.

However, officially the Roman Catholic and Greek and Orthodox Christian churches are still in serious denial about the scientific evidence available about human sexuality. As they have often been in denial about science and its teachings in the past.

Just as they originally denied the opinions of Galileo and Copernicus that the earth circled the sun. And as they, and the Anglican Church, originally denied Darwin’s thesis of evolution of the species, expounded 150 years ago.

Clutching onto imperfect understandings of ancient scripture, leaders of most of the spiritual faiths, instead of re-examining their holy texts by reference to science (as they did in other instances in the past), have adopted a new, irrational approach.

In other parts of the world, the hate may not always be so intense. But the stigma over sexual conduct that is often taught by religious people cannot be accepted any longer. It is now a major cause of death in the AIDS epidemic.

It has to stop. Not only because it is immoral, conflicted, irrational and wrong. But also because it is now seriously impeding the global struggle against HIV and AIDS for the saving of lives. The magnitude of the suffering demands blunt speaking at this time.

As Bishop Tutu has said: “All of us, especially Africans, need access to essential HIV services…Show me where Christ said ‘Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones’. Gay people too are made in my God’s image. I would never worship a homophobic God.

Rightly, Bishop Tutu has drawn a parallel between the earlier, successful, global struggle against racial apartheid and the present global struggle against sexual apartheid. To the moral struggle against sexual apartheid must now be added the urgent needs of the struggle against HIV and AIDS.

So we have a problem. At its core, it arises from that fact that, 30 years into this epidemic, we do not have a cure or a vaccine for HIV or AIDS. We have palliative treatment of great utility.

But the world cannot afford the continued economic burden of providing such treatment to 2.7 million new HIV infections each year. Urgent strategies of the world today must be addressed to the prevention of further infections.

Prevention cannot work so long as our societies stigmatise and hate many of the people most at risk of infection. Only by getting into their heads and helping them to practise and promote safer sexual and other conduct, can we bring the AIDS epidemic down.

We cannot do this effectively without cooperation and support from religious leaders. Yet all too often they are silent or actually speak against the policies that may help to reduce the stigma, promote the necessary realism and spread the love of God, not the hate of vulnerable minorities.

Too many oppose early factual education of young people in the requirements of safer sex that may help save their lives. Too many preach that condoms must not be distributed because they promote “extra-marital sex”, and falsely claim that condoms are ineffective to prevent the spread of the virus.

In particular, too many oppose the provision of condoms and other protective facilities in prisons and other institutions that are potential incubators of the epidemic. Too many object to the decriminalisation of sex work despite the value for life and human dignity that needs to be mobilised so as to empower those who work within it.

Too many oppose syringe exchange facilities that help reduce the spread of infection by injecting drug users. Too many fight fiercely against the removal of legal discrimination against gays and promote attacks on and hatred of gays in many societies.

Far too many resist the removal of the patriarchal attitudes towards women, defending the persistence of their second-class status on unconvincing religious grounds.

Those who criticise these attitudes are often castigated as God’s enemy. Well, I declare that we are God’s friends and the helpers of true spirituality and love. The religion in which I was raised had, at its core, love for God and for one another. Reconciliation. Universalism. Non-discrimination. This should be the message of religion, especially today.

The special problem in relation to the HIV/AIDS epidemic is that the principal vectors for the spread of the infection of HIV involve three means that are often the subject of religious antagonism. I refer to sex, drugs and women.

Many religions demand exclusive marital relationships for any form of human sexual conduct. That this is not what happens in most societies does not matter. Marriage remains the religious gold standard.

Those who do not, or cannot, fit within that standard are cast out of the kingdom of the faithful. But that means a huge proportion of humanity. And it is this proportion that is at risk of fear and stigma, specifically damaging to the struggle against the spread of HIV.

Likewise, religion typically opposes drug use, which is often rightly seen as diminishing the full capacity of human self-control that is part of our essential human nature. Still, if drug use is part of the reality of the world, we must face it realistically and deal with its consequences.

We should not write off to an early death those who do not meet religions’ standards. Women are particularly vulnerable to HIV because, in many societies, they are controlled by men. The stories of violence against women infected by their husbands are all too common. It is a sad tale of disempowerment and vulnerability.

There is a serious tension between the endeavours of international and national leaders to promote good public health strategies to confront HIV and AIDS and the repeated instruction of many religious leaders today, denouncing adultery, condemning men who have sex with men (MSM), rejecting IDUs and disempowering women.

If the reasoned messages of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Director of UNDP, the Director or UNAIDS and the High Commissioner of Human Rights are not heeded, a clarion wake-up call must now be given.

This is because, following the global financial crisis, the world will simply not keep handing out the funds to provide expensive anti-retroviral treatment for HIV to the millions of newly infected people who will need them every year. We must halt the expansion of the epidemic.

We need to re-double our efforts to secure effective vaccines and curative drugs. But, in the meantime, we must all contribute to prevention. Millions of lives are at stake. Protecting them effectively is one of the greatest moral challenges that is before the human family today.

Religion all too often panders to prejudice. It seems everyone needs someone to look down on. Religion should be leading people to look up: to the path of love, not hate.

This is an abridged version of the address, Aids and Religion: The Wave of Hate Must Stop, given at the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance Symposium on Aids and Religion in Den Dolder, The Netherlands on 22 March 2010.

486 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Paul says:

      06:18am | 31/05/11

      - “Most religious people are good and kind. Love for one another exists as a basic tenet in all religions and all cultures.”

      Actually most Christians (even though ’ the Roman Catholic and Greek and Orthodox Christian churches’ represent a large number of them) are like that. Most of them would be shocked at ‘Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones’.

      However Bishop Tutu would be WRONG if he said homosexuals weren’t sinners. Whether they are sinners with the inclusion of active sex life (that is if gay sex is a sin), or seperate from this (every human has sinned before a holy god, in thought, word or deed - in acting, and in failing to conduct ourselves in a way we should have) is another issue.

      - “Those who do not, or cannot, fit within that standard are cast out of the kingdom of the faithful. But that means a huge proportion of humanity. And it is this proportion that is at risk of fear and stigma, specifically damaging to the struggle against the spread of HIV.”

      Having a chaste and faithful relationship, getting to know one another in chastity and faithfulness, before marriage, represents a commitment to that person that recognises that they are more than a piece of meat, as some fashion industries would like to portray them as, and as valuable in to the other person more than any tangible benefit can bring. Sadly with the advent of porn, divorce is becoming far too common a reality, both by Christians and by those who are not Christian, because both Christians and those who are not, have got on to this craze.

      “We should not write off to an early death those who do not meet religions’ standards. Women are particularly vulnerable to HIV because, in many societies, they are controlled by men.”

      Christianity is not about male dominance. The fact that in Australia, are few in their number of the younger men is living proof of this in Australia. In fact, I believe a lot of men would turn away from the idea of church if they heard messages about putting the interests of women before their own, which is a part of the the Christian message, as so many men religious or not fail to treat women in a way that is respectful, this is NOT because of religion.

      Rather than religion, is due to the existence of SIN, with even more reason to do so with the existence of PROSTITUTES (the worlds oldest profession), men have been treating women badly. Prostitution is selling human lives as meat (albeit at a much higher price, however due to knowledge of the sex industry, I can tell you that you can get sex for the same price of some seafood).

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:57am | 31/05/11

      You should have read the whole story and you would have seen that this story is actually an excerpt from the recordings of an ecumenical body reflecting on itself.

      Something your sin of pride (In your Christianity) has not allowed you to see.

    • CBR says:

      07:23am | 31/05/11

      And it’s attitudes like the above that continue the spread of AIDS; unspoken but implied, that the infection is a punishment for sin, and a deserved one at that. Be chaste and you’ll be fine; never mind the infections that are passed on in utero, or infections passed between married partners, or infections passed by rape.

      Shame on you.

    • Lostie says:

      08:48am | 31/05/11

      CBR, Paul is correct. A chaste relationship between couples would significantly decrease the risk transfer of HIV/AIDS. To denounce this claim (as it appears you have) is to deny the reality of it. Of course this would require ‘would be’ rapists to follow the same rules, in utero can only be passed if one of the parents had been ‘unchaste’ and if a child born with the condition choose to refrain from behaviour that would harm another individual (i.e infect them with the disease) the condition would, within a few generations, cease. However, this is unrealistic and I appreciate that.

      People will behave in a way that serves this own short term interests with scant regard for others. Is it fair that a person with HIV/AIDS should be expected to refrain from sexual activity? No. Is it fair that they should risk infecting another person (where abstinence is the only 100% effective measure of preventing the transfer of the condition)? People will choose the balancing act, and justify those 1 in 100 condom (assuming 99% efficacy, it is actually higher than that)breakages as “unlucky” rather than the consequences of a calculated risk. 

      Equally, Paul should accept the reality that the Bible advocates tolerance and the absence of punishment. Leprosy was treated by Jesus, where leprosy can only be contracted by exposure to the unclean (which is treated in Leviticus and Numbers the same way as homosexuality). Clearly, Christians should be following the example set by Jesus and taking steps to save even those who are “unclean” by their own choices.

    • marley says:

      09:06am | 31/05/11

      @Lostie - people with leprosy are not “unclean” - they have a bacterial infection, nothing less, nothing more.  That’s a terrible example to use.  Or perhaps it’s a good one, because it shows what can happen when you apply the social and scientific values of 2000 years ago to modern issues.

    • Paul says:

      09:22am | 31/05/11

      I read and hear news stories about ‘revenge’ attacks by recipients of HIV through infecting hundreds of people with the disease, I also read and hear about people killing families because someone in that family had infected someone close to them with HIV.

      Even if that can be classified as revenge, and I don’t believe either case can (revenge should stay between victim and perp). Does Christianity ask people to take revenge? No, so clearly it is not the big problem for hiv/aids, or for relationships around the world, rather the problem is as I said, SIN.

    • Lostie says:

      09:30am | 31/05/11

      marley -

      It was done deliberately. “unclean” is the term used in the KJV of the bible (the most commonly used version) - I used the quotation marks to indicate that the term had a context sensitive meaning. It actually advocated staying away from such people for a prescribed period (5 days from memory) rather than condemning them entirely.

      Both leprosy and HIV/AIDS are the consequences of exposure to harmful biological agents - hence I decided they were appropriate for comparison. Jesus took time to help those suffering from exposure to a harmful biological agent despite warnings in the old testament to avoid that exposure. He treated lepers the same without regard for how they because exposed to the agent - I advocate that Christians should mimic that behaviour.

    • Oliver says:

      01:19pm | 31/05/11

      “Sadly with the advent of porn, divorce is becoming far too common a reality, both by Christians and by those who are not Christian, because both Christians and those who are not, have got on to this craze.”

      Are you serious? I stopped reading at this particularly succinct example of self-delusion.

    • Jake says:

      01:22pm | 31/05/11

      @Paul, @Lostie
      “A chaste relationship between couples would significantly decrease the risk transfer of HIV/AIDS. To denounce this claim (as it appears you have) is to deny the reality of it.”

      You’re quite correct. Additionally, not allowing people to leave their homes would significantly reduce the number of pedestrians who are hit by cars. However this does not necessarily imply that this course of action is a sensible one does it?

      There are an almost infinite number of ways we can mitigate risks by curtailing our personal freedom, but in the vast majority of cases we don’t. So what makes you so confident that a “chaste relationship between couples” is a good solution to limit the spread of AIDS? A healthy sex life is something just about every living organism on the planet enjoys so why should we abandon that freedom when condoms and common sense keep 95% of us out of trouble? I’m going to guess it’s something to do with that leather bound book you’ve been waving at me.

      As CBR said, “unspoken but implied” discrimination is unfortunately rife and often the people doing it aren’t even aware of it themselves. True acceptance means not looking down your nose at the personal decisions of others. When you say “I accept your right to do that, but here’s the reason’s why it’s wrong”, you’re not being tolerant of their choice. It’s just thinly veiled discrimination. Your opinion that some behaviour is “wrong” or is prone to risk doesn’t make you correct, nor does it validate your assertion that they should not engage in that behaviour.

      Would I be justified in telling you that even though it’s your right to go outside, it dramatically increases your risk of injury so you shouldn’t do it and to denounce this claim is to deny the reality of it? Sure, I won’t stop you, but you’re a bad person for doing it. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? Ever wonder where it comes from? Just ask all the gay people who felt so tolerated by these kinds of attitudes that they committed suicide rather than admit to being gay.

      Almost all religions preach tolerance and yet it seems like so many religious people wouldn’t know it if it followed them around all day with a bright-green placard reading “God Hates Intolerant People”. Anyone who believes that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is tolerant should head to the UK and join the BNP. I hear they accept black people now!

      You seem to think your god is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful. Is it not enough to let *god* judge who is and is not a sinner and just worry about your own chastity?

    • Another Chris says:

      01:37pm | 31/05/11

      @Oliver, It’s not self delusion to think that Porn HASN’T had a degrading effect on Marital relationships. Not ALL women appreciate their Husband (or Wife for the Husbands) looking at Porn. It makes them feel inadequate and and can cause/be the sign of deeper issues. Not everyone is what they are now calling “progressive” and watching Porn to enhance their relationships. Your delusion of being better or greater has closed your mind to considering it’s possible. I know at least one marriage that ended as a direct consequence of a Husband’s addiction to Porn.

    • men's unnatural urges cause HIV says:

      01:55pm | 31/05/11

      If only it were that simple and religion is helping the spread of aids.

      It’s way more sinister than that. Dumping new life into a waste disposal unit .. no sorry, actually forcing it inside .. against the natural flow of things. Then call this pleasurable, insist that everyone agrees and condones these actions even though it is proven to cause death.
      Why would we not like gay? Why would we not like female circumcision or men forcing their wives into unnatural sex acts?

      Stop the cause .. stop HIV. Nothing to do with religion. Everything to do with going in against the natural order of things.

      The cause of aids by PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8455483 and also http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brady1/

    • Matt says:

      02:13pm | 31/05/11

      Paul, would you mind telling me exactly how I’ve sinned if I’m homosexual?  You say I’m a sinner, so what’s my sin?  I’ve been in a committed relationship for 2 years now, my previous one 5 years.. I’m not promiscuous.. Is it actually anal sex you’re half-referring to?  It may surprise you that anal sex is practiced more by heterosexuals than homosexuals - but I guess your religion blinds you to facts.  You obviously haven’t researched your bible well if you think homosexuals are sinners.  Ignorance is bliss for those like you though, isn’t it…

    • Jake says:

      03:12pm | 31/05/11

      @men’s unnatural urges cause HIV
      “Why would we not like gay? Why would we not like female circumcision or men forcing their wives into unnatural sex acts?”

      Did you stop to think for one second before you posted this. Homosexuality isn’t forced upon someone like circumcision or forcing “unnatural sex acts” (whatever that entails), it’s a personal matter and has nothing to do with what you think is “right” or “wrong”.

      What, pray tell, do you actually know about the “natural order of things”? I mean actual knowledge based on research and scientific study, not a paragraph you read in Genesis? Are you a biologist? Doctor? Someone with *any* qualification at all that gives credence to your opinion of how nature is supposed to work?  Yeah, I didn’t think so.

      The cause of AIDS has nothing to do with gay sex. It can certainly increase the risk of transmission, however homosexuality was not the cause. Worldwide, most people with AIDS are heterosexual. Childish oversimplifications of such a complex problem - just like the one you have made - is a key part of the reason AIDS continues to run rampant across Africa and is the exact attitude that this article is referring to.

      You’ve made up some vague rationalization based on a statistic you probably heard proclaimed by one of your equally unenlightened brethren at a church luncheon and now you happily parrot it as justification for your bigoted attitude. Sorry sunshine, that might convince you that you’re not a bad person for hating them but it doesn’t work on me.

      Of course this nonsense is nothing new. Cast you mind back a hundred or so years when biblical passages referring to the devil as being “black” were often used as justification for the dehumanization of African slaves. Or even more recently where the bible’s assertion that a wife should “serve” and “obey” her husband were used to justify the marginalization of women.

      You can use fairy tales to justify anything you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that on the whole, gay people they’re probably better humans than you’ll ever be.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      03:34pm | 31/05/11

      Paul, you sound like a catholic priest or maybe even a bishop,archbishop or cardinal! Christianity, Roman Catholic Style - has always “been about male dominance” - if it wasn’t today we would have done away with the nonsense of celibacy. We would long-since have allowed the ordination of women - indeed we may well have had a Woman Pope in place rather than all those pathetic, geriatric, senile old men we have to put up with. You say that Tutu is wrong to say that homosexuals are not sinners. It is you, Paul, who is WRONG.
      “Sin”, like religion, was created by men in order to control other men &, in particular, women. The three major “western’ religions - those with their origins in the Bible, Judaism, Chritianity & Islam - have always regarded women as second-class. Why else are women segregated from men in orthodox jewish synagogues & by Muslims in their mosques? One of the few good things which can be said of non-Catholic Christians is that they do allow women to sit with their families in church, they do allow their women to become priests, bishops etc. They are trying to right the appalling wrongs done to women over the centuries.
      Prostitution provides a useful & compassionate service. So long as the women, & yes some men, go into it voluntarily there is no reason why they should not do so. Today, we are told, that many people go into the trade in order to provide the money to pay for a drug or substance addiction. That is a tragedy.
      There are untold thousands of, in particular men but also some women, who for various reasons beyond their control will never attract a long-term partner. May be they are regarded as ugly, deformed or simply don’t fit into our “Beauty and/or Age Obsessed"cultures - this is not restricted to the so-called Western Cultures - it exists in all the cultures of the world.
      All, or most, of these people have very deep sexual needs so short of committing rape - it would be interesting to know how many rapists have problems which preclude them from “normal” relationships - they should be able to access the services of a prostitute. A service which is regulated & controlled by governments so that both providers & clients are protected.
      “Western” religions do discriminate against women. They always have & probably always will. It is because we have been taught to discriminate against them by our religious leaders that we, or many of us, discriminate against them in the secular world. Despite the claims of self-serving politicians - male & female - we still discriminate against women when it comes to pay scales, employment, the priesthood etc.
      Other than the obvious physical differences between men & women there is only one area where most women may not be suited to performing certain jobs and that is where brute force & physical strength are required - though mind you I have known some women who put men to shame in those areas too!

    • men's unnatural urges cause HIV says:

      03:56pm | 31/05/11

      Jake sorry that these simple facts are so upsetting to you, but the facts are that guys pumping their sperm into the wrong opening is the cause of massive death and illness all over the world. If you were to have taken the time to read the links you would have found from PubMed.gov Natural Library of medicine info relied upon by all medicos, That there is growing evidence that allogeneic cells, rather than viruses or bacteria are the cause of AIDS. It is proposed here that these allogeneic cells are sperm cells which induce the production of anti-sperm antibodies. Anal sex, genital ulcers and female circumcision allow sperm cells to be absorbed into the body and thus produce AIDS. Also these three factors plus the use of sperm contaminated blood transfusions can explain the high incidence of AIDS among African black women. It is concluded that the practice of anal sex (men and women recipients) is widespread in Africa and that knowledge of such practice is suppressed because of society pressures.

      and from the other link provided due to female circumcision anal intercourse is resorted to with heterosexual partners. Thus the proposition that HIV transmission is enhanced because of the widespread practice of FGM.21,25.

      I know it’s upsetting Jake but denying the facts won’t make people change their ways. Since guys own the penises they are the ones needing to control their urges and not put them in places where they don’t belong if we want to stop this aids epidemic.

    • Paul says:

      04:23pm | 31/05/11

      “Paul, would you mind telling me exactly how I’ve sinned if I’m homosexual?  You say I’m a sinner, so what’s my sin?  I’ve been in a committed relationship for 2 years now, my previous one 5 years.. I’m not promiscuous.. Is it actually anal sex you’re half-referring to?  It may surprise you that anal sex is practiced more by heterosexuals than homosexuals - but I guess your religion blinds you to facts.  You obviously haven’t researched your bible well if you think homosexuals are sinners.  Ignorance is bliss for those like you though, isn’t it… “

      You’ve lied before haven’t you?

      Therefore you’ve sinned before the eyes of a holy God. As have I and everyone else.

      “Sinner” is not a name given to any group of people, it is given to all people regardless of the sexual choices. Sin is far broader than the issue of sex.

      Any homosexual who says they are not a sinner completely misunderstands sin. You can be a sinner for lying, or for downloading movies [whatever kind they may be] because film piracy is stealing, and adult films - pornography - is sinful. You can be a sinner for eating more for the sake of eating more (gluttony), you can be a sinner for swearing at someone, etc…. I can go on.

    • Jake says:

      05:05pm | 31/05/11

      Oh look you posted references… Lets take a look at them shall we?

      You first reference was to an article by one Erlander SR entitled “The Cause of AIDS” in which Erlander points to evidence of rogue sperm being the root cause of the malady. Interesting hypothesis since it ignores just about everything already known about the origin of the disease in humans.

      May I ask if you read the entire paper or just the single paragraph abstract? No matter, what’s more important is the journal in which it was published.

      It’s a softback called “Medical Hypotheses” which is described as “a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review, “so long as (the ideas) are coherent and clearly expressed” in order to “foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives”.

      Hmmm… No peer review huh? Not the most reliable sounding source is it? A little further reading revealed this gem:

      “The journal’s lack of peer review and publication of ideas that are considered clear pseudoscience, particularly AIDS denialism, attracted considerable criticism, including calls to remove it from PubMed, the prestigious United States National Library of Medicine online journal database. Following the AIDS papers controversy, Elsevier forced a change in the journal’s leadership. In June 2010, Elsevier announced that “Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit”

      (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses)

      Ain’t that grand? You’ve managed to find an article in a rag renown for AIDS denialism which denies the accepted scientific consensus that the origin of AIDS has nothing to do with gay sex. In fact the journal itself accepts that the AIDS papers are bunko!

      It’s great that you tried and all but there’s more to meta research than spamming the first article you find that supports what you want to believe. PubMed maintains a repository of just about every published article relating to medicine. Despite what you seem to think, an article’s presence in their library is in no way an endorsement of it’s content.

      If you’d done even the tiniest amount of research, you’d have seen that the article (from 1993) has 0 published citations - effectively meaning that in the 18 years since it was published, no researcher considered it worthy of referencing. Hardly a glowing endorsement.

      Do I need to look into your second reference or can you debunk that one yourself?

      I wonder how many times you’ve posted that link and received the exact same response but still kept posting it anyway? Intellectual dishonesty seems to go hand-in-hand with folks who harbour views like yours.

      I know it’s upsetting, anonymous poster, but your source is trash and so are your “facts”.

    • Ryan says:

      05:38pm | 31/05/11

      The key point about sinners being missed as that we are all sinners, the pope is a sinner, Bin Laden was a sinner, the kid delivering the newspaper is a sinner, the prophet Mohammed was a sinner, the Prime Minister is a sinner (and how!), I’m a sinner, you’re a sinner.
      Any Christian or Christian group that condemns people for being sinners needs to remember that “he without sin should cast the first stone”.

    • em says:

      09:16pm | 31/05/11

      “Most religious people are good and kind.” - sorry I started gagging and laughing hysterically at this point and was unable to read further.  I don’t usually read fiction… especially “science” fiction….

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:18am | 01/06/11

      What error do you feel my post contained,  I would appreciate an explanion thank you. Anne

      Hello Paul, It was encouraging to read your strong Stand for God’s Truth,  thank you for sharing and may you be greatly blessed for doing so. I have much respect for a person who is not afraid to speak against the accepted although wrong Liberal teaching in our Society today and sadly that is in some Churches too.
      Thank you for also defending and upholding Woman as valuable and people of worth and yes I agree with you many are treated as a commodity and not treated with respect or regarded as a gift from God. .
      But I feel with the feminist movement which is infiltrating some of the Churches that Men also are not being upheld in their God given role of Leadership and yes as you said this is to be Sacrificial but for a woman to fulfilled and content they need to thankfully accept their high calling as a Man’s Helpmate whether that be in Marriage or the Church and to submit willingly to their Godly Leadership and not seek to be in Authority over them in the role of a Ordained preacher. This does not mean a Woman has no value under Man’s Leadership or that she can’t express her gifts as she feels lead and as we know both Men and Woman are to share God’s Truth as well as to correct error and rebuke and warn if someone is heading in to dangerous waters by sinning.
      Sadly many Men are not nurtured in their Leadership role from Childhood and can also not have the right role models. If their Mother is very domineering they will show effeminate mannerisms and leanings from an early age which can lead to Homosexuality,  sometimes it causes them to resent Woman and seek to dominate them in retaliation.  A domineering Mother can also have a bad influence on their daughters and they will copy their bad example in marriage etc . This of course applies to fathers who advocated their leadership role or are overbearing and controlling..
      But as you said Paul regardless of the background as Born again Christians both Man and Woman with the empowering of The Holy Spirit are to walk in righteousness and obedience to God which shows our Love for Him .
      In reference to sin as you mentioned it is True that many claim that it is alright to sin even as Christians because we are forgiven and not under the Law but Grace,  but there is a warning in the Scriptures that is often overlooked because of other Scriptures being read out of context and these verses below are also confirmed as God’s Truth in many other parts of the Bible. But we know without putting the evil flesh nature to death by the Spirit and being perfected in Love we will not walk in Victory but be in bondage to sin.
      1John 3:4-10 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that He appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin. No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the Children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not Love his brother.
      Thank you again Paul - Christian Love Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:57pm | 01/06/11

      Hi Paul, I’m having Computer trouble and this note below which is on the top of my post to you   ...What error do you feel my post contained,  I would appreciate an explanion thank you. Anne

      This was to the moderator not you,  because they said it was in error, anyway then I received confirmation it had been posted but by that time I had already posted again so now you have been thanked twice - Take Care - Anne

    • acotrel says:

      07:00am | 31/05/11

      ‘However, officially the Roman Catholic and Greek and Orthodox Christian churches are still in serious denial about the scientific evidence available about human sexuality. As they have often been in denial about science and its teachings in the past.’

      That denial includes rejection of looking at the little foibles of their own clergy! They deny the human failures of their own people yet condemn homosexuality in others?

    • Gffk says:

      11:09am | 31/05/11

      Of course a church that prevents it’s priests from entering into human relationships of any sort (heterosexual, homosexual, family) will have a perverted view of the world.  Seemingly scanr was not a victim of this weird view of the world but unfortunately too many others were. This same medieval view of sexuality is the driving force behind religion’s part in the spread of HIV. My only criticism of the article is that perhaps Michael Kirby should stop hoping that religion will change but rather reject religion all together and adopt a view of the world based on tolerance and humanist principles.

    • Aaron says:

      01:03pm | 31/05/11

      The main reason that they called for priests to be celibate was that the leaders of the time didn’t want the church to become like a monarch. Of course there are those that may choose to be celibate, and good for them if they want to, but I personally wouldn’t choose such a life. I recon that particular rule needs to be reviewed so that rather than becoming a priest means you can’t get married, it means you can, but you can choose not to if you like.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      07:02pm | 31/05/11

      @Aaron- Actually the historical reason for Catholic priests to be celibate was to do with inheiritance of church property / wealth and nepotism (appointment of heirs and relatives to high church positions)

    • Ben says:

      06:50am | 01/06/11

      Shane, it appears that you and Aaron are saying the same thing with different words.

      As for the church and it accepting its own foibles, as Seanr would have us believe: well, sure, they owned up, after generations of priests raping children came to light, priests who were at the time shuffled from area to area increasing their reach instead of being handed over to the police, where victims were bullied and browbeaten by the church for their “immoral” behaviour, where our current pope was personally responsible for the cover up.

      That is if you consider blaming the victims and being “caught up” in the “sexual immorality” of the 60s and 70s and accusing gays of infiltrating the church, as accepting its foibles.

      Yep, they’re full of repentance that lot. They’re sorry alright, terribly sorry they got caught. The poor dears.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      07:05am | 31/05/11

      Most people not just christians are good and kind people the church and people of faith are no more good or better than non believers.
      However I as a non believer chose not to proclaim judgements on african nations like no condoms to stop the spread of HIV, unlike the dress wearing old fool with a crown and sits on a throne in a tiny enclave in Italy. The mere fact that this organisation in there rightous Zealotry would proclaim a death sentence on a group from an underdeveloped poorer nation is a disgrace.

    • acotrel says:

      07:53am | 31/05/11

      That ‘dress wearing old fool’ is probably the most powerful man in the world! As Maxwell Smart would say ‘if only he used his power for good…..? ’

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:22am | 31/05/11

      @ Kiwi Ron

      Read the story again especially the last paragraph as this is an excerpt from an ecumenical meeting where churches are looking inward at the problem they are creating.

      This is those Christian people taking a good hard look at themselves.

      I suggest you might like to do the same.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      10:16am | 31/05/11

      ZSRenn ah my own personal stalker comments again I did read the story and understand where it came from. If you search again on one of the comments you looked at it actually has full name and email address, surprised you didnt pick it up.
      I find the hypocrisy mind boggling to say the least to now say that it is up to everybody to now fix a problem that has been amplified by the policies of a group of people who see themselves and their opinions as being superior to the rest of the planet. perhaps the churches of the world could sell off their ill gotten gains and use the funds to assist the problems they have created.

    • Kika says:

      01:32pm | 31/05/11

      I disagree. Yes, you can have good kind non religious. But they have a choice to be nice or not. They can walk past the beggar and decide whether or not to flip them that $2.00. A Christian MUST because Jesus taught them to i.e. The Good Samaritan. Whether or not the religion itself is correct - religious people have a moral obligation as part of their code of ethics - an atheist does not.

    • fml says:

      02:40pm | 31/05/11

      Kika,

      ” A Christian MUST because Jesus taught them to i.e. The Good Samaritan. Whether or not the religion itself is correct - religious people have a moral obligation as part of their code of ethics - an atheist does not.”

      You are contradicting yourself, You question whether or not the religion itself is correct, then say that Religious people have to be good because its part of that religion. Why follow that religion if its incorrect?

      Makes me think you are only doing it to get into heaven, that scares me, that you will follow a religion, not question it, only for your personal gain.

      Also, its not the fact that YOU want to be a good person. This is exactly what the athiest who tosses the $2 towards the homeless person is doing, because there is no reward for them other than helping, and by your definition all religious people are incapable of that, because they are just following religion.

      God it feels good to be a good person out of my own free will :D

    • Jake says:

      04:28pm | 31/05/11

      @Kika
      “Yes, you can have good kind non religious. But they have a choice to be nice or not. They can walk past the beggar and decide whether or not to flip them that $2.00. A Christian MUST because Jesus taught them to i.e. The Good Samaritan.”

      Oh they MUST? And yet repeated studies have shown that religious people are no more charitable than atheists (http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=generous_atheists).

      While we’re on the subject of how morally upright Christians are required to be, the proportion of Christians who are sent to prison (per capita of Christian population) is roughly equivalent (actually slightly higher) than the per-capita proportion of Atheists. Catholics have a significantly higher representation behind bars (http://scientificinquiry.blogspot.com/2007/01/atheists-in-prison.html).

      So it would seem your assertion that Christians are somehow obliged to be better people doesn’t quite hold up. In reality, “objective morality”, that tired old chestnut waved around by the religious as some kind of moral quality certification, is hardly anything to be proud of.

      I’d much prefer to be in the company of someone who chooses to do good just because they want to be good, not because some unseen voice told them to.

    • Kika says:

      04:47pm | 01/06/11

      Rubbish. I know. I used to be an atheist.

    • Face the facts says:

      07:28am | 31/05/11

      The gay community has more effect on the spread of aids then any other thing. What percentage of the gay community has Aids compared with the normal people.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:22am | 31/05/11

      About 50/50.

    • marley says:

      08:24am | 31/05/11

      Not true at all.  The vast majority of HIV/AIDS victims are African heterosexuals.  Including children born with it, by the way.

    • Danny B says:

      08:30am | 31/05/11

      Leaving aside the obvious bias in this post, the question itself is flawed.  Allow me to present a hypothetical:

      You have a group of 100 people, 50 women and 50 men.  Half of each gender are gay/lesbian.  For some reason, lesbians seem to be left out of this when it comes to AIDS/HIV - this question seems to focus on hetrosexual couples and gay men.  I’m not sure why.

      Assuming that lesbians can’t pass on AIDS/HIV, this removes them from the pool of people who can get AIDS/HIV.  Going back to our example, this means there are now 25 people in the ‘gay community’ vs. 50 people in the hetrosexual community.  Five people from each community has AIDS/HIV.  This is 10% of the hetrosexuals and 20% of the homosexuals.

      Yet it’s the same number of people.  Statistics can be made to prove anything.

    • The fact is says:

      09:39am | 31/05/11

      In this country the gay community would have 10 times the amount of HIV/aids sufferers than the normal person. Is that something you are trying to hide from Mr Kirby?

    • d says:

      09:58am | 31/05/11

      “Normal People” Oh dear ! what year do you live in 1951.

      Gay Men like that of the wider Heterosexual Community are “Normal” whatever that term is meant to convey.

      HIV/AIDS does not discriminate People do!!!!!!

      GAY/STRAIGHT/BI anyone can be infected with HIV. People living with HIV here in Australia should not be stigmatized.

    • d says:

      09:58am | 31/05/11

      “Normal People” Oh dear ! what year do you live in 1951.

      Gay Men like that of the wider Heterosexual Community are “Normal” whatever that term is meant to convey.

      HIV/AIDS does not discriminate People do!!!!!!

      GAY/STRAIGHT/BI anyone can be infected with HIV. People living with HIV here in Australia should not be stigmatized.

    • AliceC says:

      10:24am | 31/05/11

      @The fact is

      Do you have some references to back up these ‘facts’?

    • Cameron says:

      12:06pm | 31/05/11

      Danny B.

      You’re forgetting that just because there is the same amount of people, does not mean it is equal. IF everything was equal, you’d expected homosexuals to have a lower total number of infections given that they represent a smaller portion of the population.

    • Chris23 says:

      02:12pm | 31/05/11

      Hmmm. My understanding is that male-male sex carries a higher risk of transmission. Similarly, male to female transmission is higher than female to male transmission, or female to female. Apparently this is also true for a large number of STI/STD’s, according to sexual health classes (don’t have access to any numbers, but it was explained to us by the risk of damage, small tears etc during intercourse).

    • Jake says:

      02:45pm | 31/05/11

      @Face the facts
      Let me answer your question with a question: What percentage of the heterosexual community has gonorrhea compared with the “normal” people?

      Oh look, it’s mostly heterosexual women (source: http://www.stdmedicaltreatment.com/SexuallyTransmittedDiseases/statistics-of-gonorrhea/). I guess we should curtail the practice of heterosexual sex in order to limit the risk to the normals, right?

      You’re part of a supposedly civilised society. That means we all, to some extent, accept the risk posed by other people’s choices.

      Drinking is a habit closely linked to a swath of different diseases and who’s impact (both direct and indirect) vastly outweighs the burden on our public healthcare system due to AIDS. Are you out there scrutinizing this practice? How about smoking? Fast food? These things all have significantly higher impact on our national health than AIDS.

      If you have something against gay people then just have the noodles to admit it rather than hiding behind unsubstantiated statistical assertions, as though they somehow validate your distaste for something that has nothing to do with you.

      How do those facts sound?

    • Martin Davies says:

      11:37pm | 31/05/11

      And therefore??? Are you suggesting that because gay men in Australia bear the brunt of the HIV epidemic that they don’t deserve the love of God or the support of family? Evidently some people here can barely conceal their blatent prejudices. Their ignorance is astounding as it is absolute!

    • Escapee says:

      08:20am | 31/05/11

      Religious communities spreads false ideas on many things,  not just aids.  In their deluded thinking, their flocks are brainwashed and eventually brain dead which means more aids, more babies, more sadness.

    • Nora Charles says:

      12:37pm | 31/05/11

      Kirby and, by extension you Escapee is an idiot. Religon isn’t helping the spread of AIDS

      It’s men who can’t keep their dicks in their pants who spread AIDS.

    • Matthew says:

      12:45pm | 31/05/11

      There’s been research to suggest that religious people are happier, not sad.  They make the rest of us sad, but delusional people are quite often happy.

    • Lostie says:

      08:32am | 31/05/11

      “Many religions demand exclusive marital relationships for any form of human sexual conduct. That this is not what happens in most societies does not matter. Marriage remains the religious gold standard.”

      There is something odd about this statement. Either people follow the standard set out (rather than demonstrated) by the religious leaders, or they do not. If the later is true, surely it doesn’t matter what the religious leaders say ad people ignore them. If the Former is true, then the issue would be significantly depleted and (as the Catholic Church recently Conceded) the use of condoms in married couples would prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

      The reality is that people ignore their religious leaders on a whim, but then pin every “wrong” they do on the word of their God. It’s the first step of cognitive dissonance. “I’m not a bad person. Only a bad person would willingly infect someone with a terminal illness…..(time for rationalisation)... Unless God told them that it was wrong to do the things that would prevent the spread of the disease”....

      People know what causes the spread of HIV/AIDS and they choose to participate in the relevant behaviour - of course evidence that people do not understand may justify an education campaign. They do it not out of “fear”, for if that were the case it would be the behaviour that is frowned upon, rather than the “protective behaviour”, that was avoided.

      While I do agree that Religion (like politics) is a populist activity (each religion is in competition for the few genuinely* religiously inclined people in the Western world) - so long as people continue to see religion as a way to justify their prejudice they will flock to the banner of Allah/god/Yahweh.

      *self reporting as religious does not get one across the line - religions are competing for those bottoms on pews.

      [For those who are not of a religious inclination: the most common explanation for the belief that Contraception is wrong is a reference to the Story of Onan in Genesis. Onan was directed by God to impregnate his bothers Wife (after God killed his brother) - he refused to do so and “spilled his seed” on the ground. God was pissed that Onan had defied his command and punished him.]

    • Atheist Delusions says:

      08:36am | 31/05/11

      Sir Ronald Bradman & others, as non believers why do you even care?, the tragedy of Aids is just Darwinian Natural Selection at work. The careless who practice unsafe sex and unlucky people who die of Aids are just making room for the careful and the lucky, Evolutionists have a name for it, Survival of the Fittest.

      So I don’t see how you can blame the Pope for these deaths, if the faithful obeyed what the Church told them they would not be infected, so why dont they sin a little bit more and put on a Condom while they are at it?, perhaps they are Muslim, Animist, homosexuals or maybe even Atheists.
      Anyway in your Atheist world they were born , lived for nothing, died for nothing and returned to oblivion just as you will.
      P.S. Good & Evil, Right & Wrong and Morals are Reigious concepts that do not exist in nature so as an Atheist you have no authority to say the Pope or anyone else is a disgrace.

    • CBR says:

      09:08am | 31/05/11

      You, sir (or ma’am), are fundamentally incorrect.

    • acotrel says:

      09:09am | 31/05/11

      @Atheist Delusions The British Eugenics Society believed in helping ‘survival of the fittest’ to remove the less nice people from society.  Are you suggesting the same approach?

    • CBR says:

      09:20am | 31/05/11

      And further more, the tragedy of AIDS really has nothing to do with “Darwinian natural selection”. HIV/AIDS doesn’t quibble with its victims, strong or weak, and by your use of the term you’re merely demonstrating your unfamiliarity with the scientific concept of evolution (and what is this “evolutionist” claptrap? There’s more proof for the veracity of evolution than there is for the mechanisms of gravity. Are you going to call us all “gravitationists” now and remain in favour of Intelligent Falling?).

      Religion prevents people using condoms. Religion furthers the spread of AIDS. It’s that simple. The respective moralities of the victims doesn’t come into it.

    • Lostie says:

      09:21am | 31/05/11

      Atleast you acknowledge that you moral bashing is nothing more than a “but I read it in a book therefore it is true” approach to morality.

      Studies demonstrate that there is very little distinction between the behaviour of theists and atheists in relations to moral wrongs, where ones theism is determine by self reporting - nor, to my knowledge, does research suggest that the churched perform better than the unchurched in controlled experiments on moral behaviour.

      (Citations can be provided is required).

      Caring for the survival of the community is of benefit to the members of the group (up to a point), further as humans with a biological predisposition to empathy and understanding, we dislike (and are hurt by) the suffering of others whether or not the fault is their own.

      Unlike the more callous members of the community who can point and say “they deserved it” or “it’s God’s will”, there are members of the public that would like to see a reduction in suffering because they don’t like others to suffer.

      Your mischaracterisation of Evolution by natural selection is laughable at best. While resistance to disease may be selected for - risk taking behaviour is part of the human condition. Our experience allows us to calculate risks (to varying degrees) and modify behaviour accordingly. Survival of the fittest is also a common misconception. Evolution perpetuates those biological imperatives that are conducive to the continuation of the species. It is neither good nor bad, it just is.

      Authority for morality comes from various sources, the Golden Rule, was common knowledge long before the publication of the Bible - either it is implanted in every person regardless of their faith or (as I suggest) it was recognised long ago that if everyone did unto other as they would have others do unto them, the world would be a much safer, happier and stable place.

      Of course, people insist on turning that around - instead of seeing duty to do unto others they hear a ‘right’ to be treated in a particular way (as they see themselves treating others). If we allow for cognitive dissonance we quickly learn that this change from duty to right is less than desirable. Rather than seeing a right to be treated with respect and dignity regardless of ones faith, see yourself as having a duty to respect the dignity and faith of all other persons and then you will have found yourself following the Golden rule. I ask one question, which of the commandments was written as a “right” of the people?

    • Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

      09:31am | 31/05/11

      Spoken like a true judgemental zealot.
      I care because that is what good people do and try to change or make a difference.
      So in your little god inspired bubble which you inhabit with all the other nutters that despise people who are free thinking and able to make decisions for themselves without being told to read and follow a bronze age tome written by someone who has still not revealed themselves.
      Once again you have turned me into an aetheist by labeling me with a word that has been instructed you use. Quite obvious to see the groups in society that you descriminate against Muslims, gays, Aetheists etc.
      With a lack of knowledge, financial resources and education in a lot of these areas for you to proclaim that if they faithfully obeyed the church this wouldnt happen is an incredibly arrogant and narrow minded statement. Not everybody believes in your sky fairy.
      In my world I am in a better place than you and your group of crackpot zealots could ever hope to be.
      PS Good and Evil, morals and Right and Wrong existed long before your little thicker version of Hansel and Gretal did so dont for a second believe that you have the monopoly on Morals and the concepts of right and wrong.

    • fml says:

      09:45am | 31/05/11

      “P.S. Good & Evil, Right & Wrong and Morals are Reigious concepts that do not exist in nature so as an Atheist you have no authority to say the Pope or anyone else is a disgrace.”

      No they are not, law and morality existed before religion, its funny how people like you have to lie to make religion an interesting prospect.

      If the pope said do not use contraception, then yes, the pope is partly to blame, also the people that dont use contraception. They may have AIDS here, but hey, they still go to heaven right?

    • Rhino says:

      09:48am | 31/05/11

      This athiest cares for many reasons for those who will die because of the lies spewed the deluded fools who follow the ramblings of some bronze age middle eastern goat herders.

      FWIW the main reason I care is because this atheist who, lives for nothing, will die for nothing and will go to nothing after that, loves looking at the blank face of a deluded theist like yourself trying to rationalise why I would care for anything. Seriously, its so funny watching you lot try to comprehend why I would care without a racists, genocidal, misygonistic despot, who loves burnt offerings, telling me what to do.

    • marley says:

      09:49am | 31/05/11

      Yep, the concepts of good and evil don’t exist in the natural world.  They do exist in human culture and society, though, and did so long before the Bible or the Koran were ever written.  And atheists have as much capacity to judge good and evil, and right and wrong, as believers do.  Never heard of the Enlightment?  Or secular values?  Funny that, even in atheist USSR, there were still laws against theft and murder.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      10:24am | 31/05/11

      CBR, Lostie, fml, Rhino, marley it warms my heart to know that there are free thinking people out there.

    • Matthew says:

      01:09pm | 31/05/11

      CBR, HIV/AIDS *does* work on natural selection.  There was an article on news.com.au within the last month or two stating that there are people with immunity to it.  HIV/AIDS is *exactly* what natural selection is about, those without immunity will die off and eventually ‘we’ all become immune (we being future human generations, not us living people).

      Atheist Delusions, Atheists also respect that everyone has an equal right to everything.  Therefore we believe that we should *all* have the right to live, the right to live in a free country, the right to food and medication, the right to not be attacked for our religious beliefs and a bunch of other things.

      You’ll notice that not all atheists follow all of those things, but catholics and muslims don’t all follow the idea that God is for everyone including homosexuals.

      Just because I don’t believe a God put me here doesn’t mean I believe it’s ok for us to murder one another (regardless of whether it was first described but a religious person or not), just as you celebrate christmas with Santa Claus despite the fact he’s not mentioned in your little book.

    • grumpy old man says:

      02:10pm | 31/05/11

      Atheist Delusions, as a “non believer “in your eyes, I have as strong a moral code as you do. It may be that my moral code comes from a different philosophy than yours, but is just as valid, and for you to suggest that only believers ( ?) have any morals is both wrong and ridiculously judgmental. Your bigoted and biased view that a non believer cannot care for humanity is one of the reasons why so many of us don’t want anything to do with religions, they breed bigots and hypocrites like you!.
      Right, wrong, good, evil and morals are not the unique province of religions as you assert, but basic tenets of humanity, that are inherent in our genetic makeup.

    • Adam says:

      03:17pm | 31/05/11

      As Hitchens would say, name me a single good act that a religious person can do that an atheist cannot. Then try and find examples of evil that a religious person can do that an atheist cannot. Unfortunately religion can make good people do bad things.

    • Jake says:

      05:18pm | 31/05/11

      Good and evil are only religious concepts? Makes you wonder how any non-christian civilization survived at all doesn’t it? Oh that’s right… Lots of them did!

      I find it utterly tragic that you seem to think the only reason to live or to be a good person is to go to heaven. You see the reason *I* care for those people is because I know that this life is all we have and it’s such a waste for it to be cut short.

      I should really be asking *you* why you care since all the people dying from this horrendous disease are fortunate enough to get an early pass to judgement by your heavenly father. Hallelujah!

      If you truly think that life has no meaning without religion, then I genuinely feel so sorry for you. I hope you one-day find something more meaningful to live for than what might come after death.

    • Seanr says:

      08:49am | 31/05/11

      I would suggest that casual sex and multiple partners is more of help in spreading Aids than religion, but that would mean people would have to exercise some self control, so let’s blame religion instead.

    • marley says:

      09:02am | 31/05/11

      In Africa, people don’t necessarily understand what HIV is or how it is spread.  Not all Africans associate the disease with sexual contact.  So how on earth can you expect them to exercise “self control” when they don’t understand the consequences?

      Education is the key to constraining the spread of HIV and AIDS - explaining to people what HIV is, how it’s transmitted, and the importance of using condoms to protect oneself and one’s partners.  If churches/mosques stand in the way of education, and some do, then yes, they are complicit.

    • Seanr says:

      09:58am | 31/05/11

      Education is certainly the key Marley, perhaps it would be better to blame the governments of these countries then. Last time I checked not all of Africa is religious and certainly not all Christian (the only religion Michael mentions in his piece), so their influence is not universal.

    • Brett says:

      11:31am | 31/05/11

      Paganism and voodoo have more to do with AIDS really. Yes the catholic church does not condone use of condoms (every sperm is sacred) but they do promote sex only in marriage, which would stop the spread of AIDS.

      In Africa, stupidity, ignorance of science and listening to witch doctors is the problem. When you believe that raping a virgin will cure your AIDS then you clearly have no idea. When you believe that if a womans clitoris is not removed it will make her head explode (as an old lady in the Sudan said) then you have no idea.

      In South Africa the government is in a large way to blame. As this quote shows “AIDS activists have expressed concern about a remark by former South African deputy president Jacob Zuma that he minimised his risk of contracting the AIDS virus during unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman, by taking a shower afterwards.”

      If your deputy President has no idea about AIDS, how do expect the rest to have a clue?

    • marley says:

      12:55pm | 31/05/11

      @SeanR - sure, governments should take some share of the blame, but that doesn’t absolve the religious orders.

    • Lisa H. says:

      06:42pm | 01/06/11

      I cannot believe that people blaming religion for not using condoms when participating in extra marital sex!
      If people are participating in extra marital sex, they are doing so because they are not strongly practicing Christians… so how is the Christian church reponsible exactly?
      If you feel every 14-year-old in a school needs access to condoms, why don’t you find a charity that will provide that for you?
      Or are you arguing that Christians have ‘cornered the market’ in charities?
      This article deliberately avoids the complications of the sexual ‘transaction’ - women and men are exposed to different physical risks by having sex, and may agree to sex for vastly different reasons.
      Sure, young people may have a reasonably equitable lifestyle, (equal access to food, shelter, protection, education, work etc) so consent may be seen as genuinely freely given.
      But grown-up women may give consent for future access to resources, or even for immediate food or aid. Consent is complicated. To ignore that, is to ignore the realities of sex that you say you know all about.
      Christian churches are at least aware of these inequalities that may exist between men and women, and are wary of the simplified ‘consent’ argument.

    • Neil Innes says:

      08:56am | 31/05/11

      Hi Mr.Kirby - the Church has indeed let down the homosexual community; the love, acceptance & tolerance that all humans crave is lacking in the Church and other major religions of the world. I don’t think that Australia is ‘homophobic’ anymore (although pockets of resistance are real) and I’m not sure that writing about the African experience will change anything in Africa, but you have to have a go. The reason is that Africa & Africans have such a different culture, world views and prejudices, that a white, former Judge stating about morality & ethics would go down as well as a live exports of cattle to Indonesia (with all due respect!) - it is African’s that should reach Africans.

    • Dan says:

      09:29am | 31/05/11

      What will man have to blame once religion is gone ? 
      (I’m sure we will find something else to blame rather than ourselves.)

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:00pm | 31/05/11

      The climate.

    • jc says:

      12:32pm | 31/05/11

      Women

    • Markus says:

      12:35pm | 31/05/11

      White males.

    • Brett says:

      01:12pm | 31/05/11

      See the two part South Park episode on the elimination of religion. Atheists will fight each other. Humans will fight regardless of religion and in fact atheistic regimes have killed more humans in the last 100 years than religion has killed in the course of humanity. True story.

    • fml says:

      01:21pm | 31/05/11

      Bigfoot.

    • Drew says:

      03:06pm | 31/05/11

      The media.

    • Brad says:

      01:18am | 01/06/11

      @Brett - “See the two part South Park episode on the elimination of religion. Atheists will fight each other. ”

      Wow now there’s a source of intellectual material…

      “Humans will fight regardless of religion and in fact atheistic regimes have killed more humans in the last 100 years than religion has killed in the course of humanity. True story.”

      Name one that was killed for atheism, in the name of atheism or for any atheistic reason…

      Good people do good thing, bad peopld do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion… sound familiar??  This is why a perfectly normal father of 4, who has been a holy man his whole life, grabs a gun and murders an abortion doctor in the name of his religion and his god. If he was an atheist, would he have had any reason to kill the doctor? Definately not.

      Further to this, there are atheistic nations that exist right now, these are some of the most crime free and peaceful societies on earth, try that on for your “true story”. There are many peer reviewed studies to re-enforce this, google is your friend smile So no, after religion is gone we wont suddenly grow a desire to murder eachother. Conflicts will always exist around resources, population capacity etc, but at least removing one evil from the world should make it, well, a better place to live - maybe even less crazy people :D

    • Brett says:

      09:15am | 01/06/11

      @Brad, way to take a light hearted post and turn it into a rant. South Park is the most intelligent show on TV with every episode having a double or triple meaning and a scathing social commentary. If you had the brains to appreciate it you would. It was a funny episode, get over it.

      As for the atheist killing thing: “In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.”

      http://atheisticviolence.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/atheism-not-religion-is-the-force-behind-the-mass-murders-of-history/

      It may be able to be counter argued, even I am not entirely sold on the Hitler thing, though his murders were not religiously based by any means. Stalin, Mao Zedong and even Kim jong il are all decidedly atheist and ban(ed) religion, yet still found a way to murder people. So stop blaming religion for all wars and murder. Men will kill men regardless of religion or not, even in spite of.

    • Brad says:

      10:21pm | 01/06/11

      South Park… yes.. Pinnacle of social commentary… for people trying to get a rise using the lowest common denominators… such as fart jokes.. Sorry, didn’t realise that the show was actually made to run a profit appealing to white trash America.. how silly of me. Got carried away reading books and learning more about the real world instead of watching cartoons.

      “In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.”

      Wow that’s great… Do you have any proof that Hitler was an atheist? It is widely accepted that he believed he was doing god’s work, he started out as a christian, in mein kempf some argument could be made towards Deism at the very least,

      “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race…so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe…Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.” - Hitler Mein Kemph.

      Creator…. hmmm rules out atheism and agnosticism, only leaves deism or theism. The only people espousing the crap about him being an atheist are those in the catholic church trying as hard as possible to wash their hands of him after they provided so much help to the nazi’s in the early years.

      Some more Mein Kempf if you’re in doubt:

      “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.”

      And in a speech at the Reichstag he said, “... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work.”

      Words of an atheist hmm? .... Only a blind moron would attempt to argue such a thing.

      Stalin and Mao were politically motivated, they killed for power. They abolished religion as it was a threat to their power regimes in their eyes. It had nothing to do with atheism being the cause, they were power hungry men who wanted all to worship them, be a god type figure in their subjects eyes, evidenced by the over glorification of their effigies and images.
      I would however like to see actual evidence to prove they killed people, in the name of atheism.
      As in: Suicide bombers kill in the name of their god, to be rewarded by their god…. How is that even possible for an atheist…
      Die, so, umm, I can, umm, appease… hmm….. THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! RAWR!....

      It just doesn’t happen. Bad people do bad things, granted, but for good people to do something horrible, it takes a justification such as religion, killing for god to be rewarded type situation.

      Did i blame relgion for ALL deaths and wars? No… but they have led to millions of deaths that may have been avoided if they lacked the leverage of religious virtue.

      such as - thirty years war, milhemet mitzvah, “wars of religion” (its actual name), Crusades, Jihads, i could go on, but its… long.

    • andre says:

      09:30am | 31/05/11

      You got t all back to front Michael :
      Helicentrism is an unproven mathematical model , evolutionism is unproven somekinda research program at best, it has nothing to do with science, and Scripture says “you shall not commit adultery”.
      If people were obeying the commandment above there would be no problem with sexually transmitted disease, unwanted teen pregnancies and so forth.
      You are right in one :It is the religion of naturalism helps encourage homosexual behaviour, promiscuity and thus help spreading AIDS. For your info : AIDS virus is much smaller than pores in condom rubber….

    • CBR says:

      09:58am | 31/05/11

      I’m going to ignore all the ridiculous unscientific claptrap and focus on the last sentence:

      You are wrong. You are flat out wrong. Correct and proper condom use can reduce the risk of transmission of HIV by 85-95% (improper use by 60-70%).

    • fml says:

      10:13am | 31/05/11

      Andre,

      So is air, have you ever tried blowing up a condom? or you afraid you might contract AIDS?

    • MD says:

      10:14am | 31/05/11

      Please be trolling, no one can be this stupid…

    • andre says:

      11:12am | 31/05/11

      @MD, fml, and CBD Looks like I got you scared .It is the commandment that prorects you , not the condom.

    • fml says:

      11:39am | 31/05/11

      What commandment protects me against ignorance?

    • switch78 says:

      09:45am | 31/05/11

      I am a gay male, and I can tell you truthfully that unsafe sex is sill practiced and is rampant within the gay community. They are referred to as “barebackers” and alot of gay men do it, and have no shame in doing it. They see it as giving each other “gifts” when they have unsafe sex. I have met a few gay men who are HIV+ and are married with children too.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:32am | 31/05/11

      Ah, so the gay community have as many arseholes in them as the heterosexual community.

    • SD says:

      03:25pm | 31/05/11

      And now we see how the heterosexual community came to be burdened with HIV. Thanks gays!!!

    • Steve says:

      09:21am | 01/06/11

      SD- you ignorant arrogant arsehole.

    • Timmy says:

      09:45am | 31/05/11

      Having recently shared a meal with a Christian missionary (Protestant not Catholic) who travelled through Africa, spending time with communities that have been ravaged by AIDS, I would severely doubt the affect of the Catholic position on condoms has on the actual wearing of them. The missionary spoke of conversations with men who considered the wearing of condoms an affront to their manliness. He reported that condoms were not that hard to come by, although they probably would be if men started using them. He felt that even if you could convince them that wearing condoms was a good idea, that getting them to carry condoms in preparation for a possible sexual encounter was going to be difficult because this is not how they operate.

    • Brad says:

      12:25pm | 31/05/11

      Yes, but the religious position adds yet another excuse. Additional damage is done because the excuse is further applied to a significant proportion of the population who aren’t uneducated Africans.

    • The Body says:

      09:51am | 31/05/11

      If you dont want the spread of aids people should use their bodies the way they were intendid. The anus is an exit valve for excretion not an inlet for pleasure or pain.

    • CBR says:

      10:15am | 31/05/11

      HIV is also transmitted quite commonly in utero, during birth, and via breastmilk.

      Or shouldn’t we be using our bodies as intended?

    • Lostie says:

      10:56am | 31/05/11

      Minor point of contention - there is no intention behind any orifice, simply evolved functionality. Intention requires a sentient being to hold a requisite intention before the creation of the orifice.

      That said, I do not deny that the anus is an exit valve for waste, however we find ways to use our bodies for various activities that was not the primary cause or their evolution (such as our spatial ability to play computer games, our athletic ability for sports and races, our intellectual ability to debate and engage with others). The fact that a use is contrary to the evolutionary purpose should not encourage us to discourage that activity, even where it causes harm to the participants.

    • Kevin says:

      12:41pm | 31/05/11

      Judging by a lot of the posts, The Punch is an exit valve for excretion.

    • James of SA says:

      03:41pm | 31/05/11

      And yet the g/pleasure spot of the male is right at the back of the anus… It’s no wonder so many married and bi guys with girlfriends cheat with other men.

      Watch your men ladies because you have no idea the reality of how many of your men when they are off to “hang out with mates” are actually off meeting other men for sex.  wink

    • Grant says:

      09:58am | 31/05/11

      Mr Kirby

      Well said Sir…

    • loulou says:

      03:09pm | 31/05/11

      But then, Mr Kirby would say that

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      10:05am | 31/05/11

      Michael Kirby…a very good article.


      HIV does not discriminate People do !!!

      Gay or Straight if you have unprotected sex you have the chance of contracting the virus.

      I urge everyone to look at “The Kirby Institute” website and learn more about this Virus that has not gone away.

    • Not a Catholic says:

      12:13pm | 31/05/11

      Especially those pesky catholics hey Drew? You never descriminate do you?

    • AdamC says:

      10:06am | 31/05/11

      This article only sets out the author’s critisicms of religious groups’ role in the spread of HIV/AIDS in the most vague (and repetitive) terms. Phrases like ‘disempowering women’ are essentially meaningless and seem to be used here to avoid actual detail or (heaven forbid) evidence.

      In my view, the secular celebration of licence and self-gratification are just as important in facilitating the spread of HIV/AIDS as any religious practices. When modern permissiveness is combined with generalised ignorance, relative poverty and high rates of violence, we see the highest rates of HIV infection. Societies with greater degrees of religious observance and reverence for traditional morality have lower rates of HIV infection.

      I regard this ‘Christianity abets AIDS’ argument as essentially a post-Christian self-loathing fallacy.

    • Peter says:

      01:05pm | 31/05/11

      I’m curious about this idea of modern permissiveness. Exactly what makes you think that permissiveness is a modern concept? I have to take exception to the Idea that more religious societies have less HIV / AIDS While I’m sure it does contribute i’d say it’s more likely read better education and cultural acceptance of the use of condoms.

    • marley says:

      01:08pm | 31/05/11

      Yours is a pretty eurocentric take on things.  “Modern permissiveness” is essentially a western thing,  Cultures elsewhere are far more steeped in traditional values than we are - and yet the highest rates of HIV/AIDS occur infection in Africa, not Europe or North America or Australia. 

      Africa’s biggest problem is the inclination to rely on traditional social structures, tribal rules, shamanism at the expense of education and science.

    • AdamC says:

      01:58pm | 31/05/11

      Peter and Marley, shamanism etc is really the generalised ignorance to which I was referring. And, while I do not know whether the culture of sexual licence prevailing in much of sub-Saharan Africa is new or not, it certainly assists in the spread of STIs like HIV. It is also contrary to the same Christian teachings that the author asserts are responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS.

      Hence my comments about a post-Christian, self-loathing fallacy.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:20am | 31/05/11

      Thanking you Michael Kirby for your concern for those who are affected by Aids and also for your concern for Woman who are often devalued in our Society including sadly in some Churches but not all. As I was thinking about the preparation for my Ministry that needs to be done what impacted me was that People are more important then everyday concerns although they have a place, so I felt a real need to respond to your message and catch up later with my preparation and Trust the Lord for His balance.

      Although I have posted in the past on most of what you have shared I would now like to confirm again how God’s Truth brings light into the darkness of Aids and those who are affected by it but I will respond again in regard to the other issues you have raised in coming posts.

      First let me confirm that God knew and recorded about Aids before the 1980s it is mentioned in the Scriptures which no doubt you know were written after the Death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ approx 2,000 years ago

      Medically we are now aware that Aids comes from Bacteria in the Male rectum that infiltrates the Immune system breaking down the production of good bacteria and eventually destroying it’s function and that it is passed on through intercourse, it’s start has no connection to Monkeys has some have claimed.

      Like you Sir I agree passionately with the need to be Loving and tolerant of others so does God but I also cannot water down His warning that people who practice Homosexuality are in grave error and danger. I believe in light of the Scriptures that God is not accepting of this type of behaviour the same as with all sin, but I do not in any way agree that He does not have compassion and Love for those who do wrong, God’s Truth is very clear about this but He longs for us to repent and turn from evil and do good.
      In warning us that we will be punished for the wrong we do, God is in fact seeking to protect us in the same way the Law in our Country is, for example what would happen if we all chose our own agenda when it came to the traffic lights such as ... you and I decided from now on red was go and green meant stop, we would be placing not only ourselves but others in danger and this would still be so even if we found some others who would agree with us. God’s Laws are not to deprive us or cause us pain and they are not based on intolerance as most people understand it. Yes God is indeed intolerant of wrong doing, the same as the Law of the Land is, but it is for our good not bad…
      Thank you again Sir and I hope and pray that one day all may come to understand and accept the great Love God has for us His created Children and that we will all be healed of the emotional, mental, physical and spiritual afflictions that we encounter in this fallen world by fully accepting for Eternity His promise of Life Eternal through Jesus Christ His Son who is part of the Godhead.

      Kind Regards Anne

    • CBR says:

      10:34am | 31/05/11

      Anne,

      “Medically we are now aware that Aids comes from Bacteria in the Male rectum that infiltrates the Immune system breaking down the production of good bacteria and eventually destroying it’s function and that it is passed on through intercourse, it’s start has no connection to Monkeys has some have claimed.”

      This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong, and also wrong. HIV is a VIRUS. Viruses are very different from bacteria, and in fact this one evolved from SIV (the primate version of the virus). I don’t know where you got your medical knowledge from, but it is so incorrect it would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

    • Lostie says:

      11:04am | 31/05/11

      “Medically we are now aware that Aids comes from Bacteria in the Male rectum that infiltrates the Immune system breaking down the production of good bacteria and eventually destroying it’s function and that it is passed on through intercourse, it’s start has no connection to Monkeys has some have claimed.”

      I am not going to challenge this claim outright as I do not know the facts. I certainly had not read the claim you make.

      In the interests of furthering my education could you please provide a citation or reference to a peer reviewed study, published in a reputable journal, that supports your claim?

      Perhaps by doing so you could help me “understand and accept”, as you profess your intention to be.

    • bella starkey says:

      11:19am | 31/05/11

      Either this is one epic troll or the education system is epically failing.

    • fml says:

      11:30am | 31/05/11

      hehehe

      Anne must think you might catch the aids if someone farts.

      btw whats a godhead?

    • Aaron says:

      01:06pm | 31/05/11

      It is a pity Anne, that my comment regarding the actual medical truth behind AIDS/HIV appears to have been moderated out. Needless to say your comment regarding the origins is completely untrue, as you are suggesting that all men carry AIDS/HIV and as a result everyone has been infected with this disease as a result, more specifically your theory identifies Adam and Eve as being the original culprits and if they had abstained from sex there would be no AIDS/HIV and of course there would be no other humans.

    • Liam says:

      01:08pm | 31/05/11

      Anne - you aren’t making any sense mate?

      “First let me confirm that God knew and recorded about Aids before the 1980s it is mentioned in the Scriptures which no doubt you know were written after the Death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ approx 2,000 years ago.” - LOL

      “Medically we are now aware that Aids comes from Bacteria in the Male rectum” - o_O  

      “...we will all be healed of the emotional, mental, physical and spiritual afflictions that we encounter in this fallen world.” - Oh Anne, life ain’t so bad - put a smile on your dial!

      (I really hope she was trolling, but i’m sure she’s just delusional/religious)

    • Kika says:

      01:38pm | 31/05/11

      And FIV - Cat’s Aids? My cat died of complications due to Aids. Rest His little cotton socks. He didn’t come into contact with the human male rectum. And all Aids is a virus not a bacteria. Otherwise we could cure it with antibiotics. Viruses don’t have a magic cure button hence the issue.

      What about HIV in heterosexual people - who would have little fluid to fluid contact with the male rectum?

      This post doesn’t make sense.

    • Matt says:

      02:21pm | 31/05/11

      You fail miserably at trolling Anne… And if you really are this stupid, please don’t breed.

    • Kevin says:

      04:45pm | 31/05/11

      I’ll have to avoid all the men who talk through their arse.

    • Jake says:

      05:47pm | 31/05/11

      “Medically we are now aware that Aids comes from Bacteria in the Male rectum that infiltrates the Immune system breaking down the production of good bacteria and eventually destroying it’s function and that it is passed on through intercourse, it’s start has no connection to Monkeys has some have claimed.”

      Ugh… Another one. I’ve debunked this already for someone but I’ll do it again for you Anne. Thank me later.

      The theory you’re espousing - no doubt without the slightest understanding of what you’re actually talking about - is part of a long chain of AIDS denialism papers that were posted in the journal “Medical Hypotheses” between the late 80’s and 2010 when the journal finally adopted a policy of peer-review, a process which is the cornerstone of scientific publication.

      The journal itself was utterly discredited due to the AIDS papers and revoked many of them itself and admitted that the quality of research was below sub-par. The whole saga is outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses#AIDS_denialism_papers_and_fallout

      Here’s some more background for you (see how many of the theories you believe are listed on this page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism

      AIDS is a virus and it’s cause is HIV. This is a fact accepted almost unanimously by medical researchers and supported by a myriad of independent studies. It is not bacteria borne. It is not caused by rogue sperm or allogenic processes. These are rubbish assertions that was spouted in non-peer reviewed articles in a discredited journal and, sadly, now we have to constantly deal with people - like you - who tenaciously cling to these bogus findings as justification for their general distaste for homosexuality.

      So let me challenge you, Anne. If you believe what you say - that AIDS has nothing to do with monkeys or SIV and that it is purely a result of anal sex - find a paper from any *peer-reviewed* journal with an impact factor above 1.5 - In-fact I’ll just take any peer-reviewed journal at all - and post a link to it here.

      This is clearly important to you since you felt the need to post a comment here about it, so I take it you’d like to be certain that what you believe is actually correct and supported by science. If you cannot, then I further challenge you to post a comment admitting as much. I don’t expect you to reverse your belief that homosexuality is a sin or whatever else, I just want you to honestly admit that your opinion is not supported by science - that or show me the science that does support you.

      I’m willing to believe you’re the unfortunate victim of bad information and not deliberately spreading falsehoods to support your beliefs because that would be dishonest which I’m told is a fairly un-christian thing to do. Will you vindicate that belief or just leave be another person more interested in being perceived as right than actually being right?

    • James says:

      10:47am | 01/06/11

      Firstly, it looks like Anne is in no hurry to stump up with the links to the relevant scientific evidence as she “covenanted” (promised). I look forward to being proved wrong here Anne (I don’t mean to be a Doubting Thomas…but…)

      We must contextualise the comments of the former Justice of the High Court of Australia before we get too carried away with the actual information presented by Mr Kirby and the comments in this thread.

      Mr Kirby is a highly intelligent man. Unfortunately for him, he believes in God (within the “Christianity context”), has a humanitarian disposition and is a practising homosexual in a decades long monogamous relationship with his partner.

      Mr Kirby is a credit to humanity - which is wherein his dilemma lays. This man who has given so much and done such good cannot reconcile the fact that this matters not and his - and your -  God will apparently still “cast him down with the (other) sodomites” when he finally has no further use for his judicial pension and presents at the pearly gates.

      I completely understand where the good Judge is coming from. He has lead and is leading a good life. He has contributed a great deal to the local and international community. He believes strongly in God and the Godliness of man. He is a former High Court Justice and understands both logic, faith and punishment. To comprehend faith and logic simultaneously in all matters “God” creates more questions than answers (as evidenced by some of the nutters who have posted) and I can see his point. Why would a compassionate God (as all the theists here assert him to be) condemn such a worthy man to fire and brimstone for eternity, simply because of the love that dare not speak its name. Why does monogamous homosexuality (the “bad”) outweigh all of the widely acknowledged “good” for which he- through his God - has gifted to the world. Why do the scales of heaven lean so very far to oneside?

      I guess the point that I am getting to is that Mr Kirby manifests this “cognitive dissonance” by loving and loathing God and the church simultaneously. Those of you who have read his (often) dissenting HC judgements will testify that Mr Kirby has an ability to reason through the same plethora of facts as others and come to completely different conclusions that still somehow seem to make sense and if followed would deliver REAL justice and equity (even though the other six High Court Justices might and often did disagree).

      So Mr Kirby is right…and wrong. The church does a great deal of good in dealing with the symptoms of the AIDS pandemic / epidemic. However, he is also right that the church is partially responsible either explicitly or implicitly in contributing to the spread of AIDS by discouraging / demonising / stigmatising the use of condoms which objective scientific evidence has shown does lessen the likelihood of being infected by the virus. (BTW - those of you peddling the pseudo quasi scientific “twaddle” that condoms are ineffective should be ashamed of your AIDS holocaust denial. Shame on you self-confessed Christians deliberately “bearing false witness” - which I am lead to believe is a Capital “L” Christian law - the breaking of which will also see you cast down with the sodomites when your God judges you!)

      I do not understand how the church and Christians can “honestly” act / state/ and behave in a manner that treats homosexuality as more “sinful” than other sins. In fact, I have read in the Bible that if you have committed one sin you are guilty of them all. That means those of you who are liars (bearing false witness) are also sodomites. Interesting stuff huh?

      Those fervent religionists who have posted need to be TRUTHFUL and acknowledge before their community, church and God that their church and its ministers are deliberately prevaricating and being disingenuous regarding the issue of condoms as an barrier to infection (be it AIDS or other STI’s). Where it is not possible / plausible / desirable for a person to abstain -  condoms are a largely effective risk reduction strategy. Furthermore you must also acknowledge that your church (and NOT YOUR GOD) is treating homosexuality as a more (or most) severe sin than other sins such as lying, envy (i.e. coveting asses – ironic I know) which is contrary to the teachings of your God and his book(s).

      The reality is that you religionists are narrow minded bigoted flat earthers with nothing better to do than ostracise, finger wag and tut tut other human beings who do not share your views. You believe in juxtaposing ideas such as the sanctity of life (i.e.  Brandishing a “pro life” banner outside an abortion clinic while the next day “whoop - whoop - whooping” the execution at Huntsville in Texas of a murderer whose life is somehow “less sacred” than others…

      Man – bring on the rapture…the sooner you loony’s no longer walk the earth the better it will be for those left behind….

    • Liam says:

      12:28pm | 01/06/11

      Agreed James. I’m not an aggressive person, but I remember one of the hardest days of my life, i knew if there were pro-life protestors there i would have lost it. Religion is a cancer on the human race

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      10:21am | 31/05/11

      Gay or Straight we should not stigmatize those living with HIV.

      We show compassion towards those living with other chronic illnesses such as Cancer…the same should be given towards those living with HIV in our society.

      Why is there stigma in Australia RE: People living with HIV

      1) its a an SDI
      2) Higher proportion of Gay Men in Australia are infected.

      This Stigma must stop…. Compassion is the Key.

      HIV affects someones Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Aunt and Uncle.

    • John says:

      10:31am | 31/05/11

      This is why aids is spreading

      “One in four South African men questioned in a survey said they had raped someone, many more than once.”

    • fml says:

      11:15am | 31/05/11

      That was a misprint, they meant to say “Skyped”

    • Brett says:

      01:21pm | 31/05/11

      AIDS is also spreading because they believe that raping a virgin will cure them.

      Also: “AIDS activists have expressed concern about a remark by former South African deputy president Jacob Zuma that he minimised his risk of contracting the AIDS virus during unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman, by taking a shower afterwards.”

      If your deputy President has no idea about AIDS, how do expect the rest to have a clue?

    • hamster says:

      02:52pm | 31/05/11

      @John - rape is fast becoming the South African national sport.
      @Brett - update - Zuma is now PRESIDENT of South Africa. It’s worth noting that his predecessor - Thabo Mbeki - denied the connection between HIV and AIDS and stopped funding for treatment programs for many years.

    • Brett says:

      09:21am | 01/06/11

      @ Hamster - GOLD!!! HAHAHA that is hilarious… poor South Africa, that country is going to crap. No wonder they all move to NZ and then here.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      10:38am | 31/05/11

      Anne Stocks I was never going to comment on any of your posts as I thought you were a few tinnies short of a six pack and i was right.

      “Medically we are now aware that Aids comes from Bacteria in the Male rectum that infiltrates the Immune system breaking down the production of good bacteria and eventually destroying it’s function and that it is passed on through intercourse, it’s start has no connection to Monkeys has some have claimed.”

      You are without doubt one of the most brainwashed and seriously deluded individuals I have ever had the misfortune of reading, It is because of zealots like yourself that I gravitate away from religious nutters writing crap like this is unforgiveable and I will never comment on one of your posts again you idiot.

    • MK says:

      04:54pm | 31/05/11

      A few Tinnies?
      to say six short, and only the cardboard left would be an understatment,

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      11:23am | 31/05/11

      Must be all that encouragement of abstinence and discouragement of pre marital sex that is spreading AIDS.

      OH! I got it, religious people are using reverse psychology, them sly, cunning religious people, them.

    • Suzanne says:

      12:23pm | 31/05/11

      That doesn’t help married people who have HIV, does it? Or the children born with HIV as a result of the church-sanctioned contraception-free marital sex.
      A condom would though but no, contraception is the devils work so we couldn’t possibly allow that! Then there’d be no HIV riddled babies to fill the churches in 20 years.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:08pm | 31/05/11

      If your partner knowingly conceals HIV from you, it is a criminal offense. If you inject intravenous drugs or cheat on your partner and get HIV, you’re hardly leading a religious life, so you can’t blame religion for not using contraceptives.

      If both people follow their religion and abstain from pre marital sex and drug use, they will most probably not get HIV, other causes are unfortunate, yet extremely rare.

      If you have HIV for one reason or the other, and you tell your partner, I am quite convinced that using contraceptives achieves a greater good than not using contraceptives, both from a religious and a common sense perspective. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly a moron or just a down right evil person, whether they pretend to be preaching some religion or not, and everyone would be wise to steer clear of them and their teachings.

      Religion is a personal thing. If a man, be he ordained or not, says something that goes against your own understanding of religion, you should probably ignore that. Don’t forget, ordained people are just humans who have spent more time exploring a religion than the average person. They are still humans, they still make mistakes. Think for yourself and stop blaming others for your own stupidity.

    • Kevin says:

      04:51pm | 31/05/11

      No, it is there insistence that abstinence is the only way to fight the spread of aids that is the problem.  The “religious people” have resisted all other programs such as education regarding safe sex and making condoms available.  That is why they are part of the problem.

    • andre says:

      11:30am | 31/05/11

      from the page below :

      “The tragedy is that even though the government and NACA recognise abstinence and mutual fidelity as the means that offer the best protection against HIV/AIDS,...”

      http://www.nigerianmuse.com/projects/AIDSProject/?u=Okwuosa_on_HIV_AIDS.htm

      Most gentlemen in Africa have habit of attacking lower parts of the bodies of quite few ladies and that is the problem , not the religion.

    • Trent says:

      11:48am | 31/05/11

      So before condoms or protection from STDs who was to blame?

    • Dementer says:

      11:55am | 31/05/11

      Michael please dont bring out the Galileo card, to justify your preference for men.

      Galileo held that the primary aim of Scriptures was not to reveal scientific truths but “…to worship God and save souls

      Galileo believed in God and probably hated gays as well you know.

      Is there a Godwins Law for Galileo?

    • Simon says:

      12:12pm | 31/05/11

      Wow - The Punch just got some gravitas. Wonderful to see His Honour contribute an article. A very wise, just, and learned man. I hope his honour is not too disparaged by the quality of some of the replies….

    • Bitten says:

      01:29pm | 31/05/11

      I know, I was thinking that too. Hopefully he doesn’t read the trolls.

    • mel says:

      06:24pm | 31/05/11

      What a fawning comment

    • mel says:

      08:26pm | 31/05/11

      @Simon,  Michael Kirby, naturally enough, does not want homosexuals blamed for the spread of HIV/AIDS.  It’s not about “wise, just or learned”.  He wants the blame to go elsewhere -  religion.  Wise up

    • Bitten says:

      08:50pm | 31/05/11

      When you’ve achieved nothing, it’s easy to disparage those who are unlike you, mel. When you have achieved anything, you respect those who have achieved higher than you. You recognise the significance of their achievements. Now go back to your mediocre nothingness. Perhaps you can disparage someone else who has achieved something - it will doubtless be a big club in comparison to yourself and your ilk.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      12:15pm | 31/05/11

      Statment by sir ronald bradnam says:07:05am | 31/05/11 ...Most people not just christians are good and kind people.

      Thank you Sir Ronald Bradnam I’m pleased you acknowledge that Christians are good and kind people too although by your previous and latest posts it would seem that you have once again changed your mind which only leads me to think you have a tendency to say what you think at the time without any real conviction,  a bit like some Politicians seeking to have agreement for their ungodly agenda.

      Well let’s hope Sir Ronald Bradnam that your focus doesn’t keep changing like shifting sand and you find some real evidence to support what seems to be your claim ...  that only you and those who agree with you know it all ... but perhaps you do I really don’t know you personally so how can I judge ... still many would need to have some validation what you believe is True not just because you claim it to be.

      Just so you are aware I do not claim to know it all,  in Truth I’m still learning but what I do know to be True I have no doubts about. 

      Take Care and Kind Regards Anne.

      P.S Were your surprised that the Scriptures talked about Aids almost 2,000 years ago or did you know ?

    • SA says:

      12:40pm | 31/05/11

      Anne,

      “P.S Were your surprised that the Scriptures talked about Aids almost 2,000 years ago or did you know ? “

      Can you quote where this was mentioned?

      I’m sincerely hoping you are a troll, and that someone so incredibly ignorant and blind could exist. Seriously, I am not even going to touch on the previous comment you made about being “medically aware” of the completely WRONG cause of aids.

    • Rhino says:

      12:50pm | 31/05/11

      The scriptures rock Anne Stocks, so awesome, they predict the future! Like the world is going to end on 21 May 2011 (whoops), they also told me about Unicorns (yayay!) and curing Leprosy by sacraficing 2 birds for their blood with cedar wood and hyssop at an altar (gotta love the whole blood sacrifice and worship thing you got going on their Anne).

      FYI, leprosy is caused by bacteria, AIDS is a virus, learn the difference it is very important for your health and well being. Bacterial infections such as Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis, which cause leprosy, can be treated relatively easily today and is quite effective, sacrificing some birds at an altar, hasn’t been shown to be as effective. Now viruses, like AIDS, cannot be treated so easily treated, but they can be controlled (albeit rather expensively).

      Remember kids, science will fly you to the moon, religion will fly you into a building.

    • Mutumbo says:

      01:34pm | 31/05/11

      Yeah, but science can also fly you into the gas chamber, gulag or abortion clinic.

    • Simon says:

      02:10pm | 31/05/11

      Read Romans Chapter 1, focussing on verse 18 to the end.

    • Brett says:

      02:46pm | 31/05/11

      Simon - I still don’t see the reference to AIDS. It says men shouldn’t sleep with men and are sinners, so I can see the no gay referernce. But AIDS is a virus that anyone can catch, not just gay people, so the bible didn’t say anything about it really.

    • hamster says:

      02:56pm | 31/05/11

      Anne/Simon the bible also says:
      * DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
      If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
      * DEUTERONOMY 22:22
      If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
      * MARK 10:1-12
      Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
      * LEVITICUS 18:19
      The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
      * MARK 12:18-27
      If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
      * DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
      If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

    • Liam says:

      04:06pm | 31/05/11

      Yes the bible is just another control text written by backwards men. Cue shock and horror. The sooner this cr@p is gone from here the better. For now i’ll just continue to completely ignore anything remotely religious.

    • Simon says:

      06:25pm | 31/05/11

      @ Brett - Romans 1 v 27 ‘and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.’

      For humankind’s sinfulness - God gave them the ‘due penalty for their error’. While this doesn’t specifically say the word AIDS - it is undeniable that AIDS started within the gay community. Furthermore sickness and diease is in the world because of humankind’s sinfulness according to the Bible.

      @ hamster - Well done, you have successfully taken the bible out of context. Here is a little lesson for people who don’t understand how to read the bible (non-christians and christians alike). The bible is set out on the basis of about 5 contracts between God and man. The important point is that 4 of the contracts have been superceded by the last. So Hamster - quoting from DEUTERONOMY and LEVITICUS which fit under the 2nd contract without reference to the last contract - which is still inforce you are going to get the wrong understanding. Always read and understand the Old Testament by reading it through the glasses of the New Testament.

    • Aaron says:

      08:23pm | 31/05/11

      So Simon… are you therefore saying that the 10 commandments are no longer in effect and as such it is now lawful to commit murder, adultery, theft, and so on and so forth? As from my knowledge there was no contract reinforcing those, or are the 10 commandments somehow superior to the other contracts that have been made?

      Something interesting to also note in Romans 1 is that all depictions of God are classed as graven images and those who worship them are sinners also. In Romans 2 Paul cautions against judging another as you are in fact condeming yourself.

      Paul blows everything he says out of the water in Corinthians 1:17 when he himself claims to not be preaching with wisdom or eloquence.

      As you can see it is very easy to find verses that meet one’s need.

    • Brett says:

      09:33am | 01/06/11

      @Simon - “it is undeniable that AIDS started within the gay community”

      Yes it is deniable. It SPREAD in the gay community more quickly because of a higher risk of infection through anal sex, and it was first recognised there because it was a single contained population, making the coincidence unlikely. Straight people also had it at this stage, but the cause was unknown.

      Secondly, if you think God causes sickness and disease then you aren’t really worshipping a very loving God are you? And you also clearly miss the point of the bible and God’s purpose. Who is the ruler of the world Simon? That’s right, the bible says Satan, not God. And why does Satan have control and God allows it? In order to answer the questions satan raised to God in Genesis and Job.

      You may need a basic bible education if you are to preach it.

    • Simon says:

      11:27am | 03/06/11

      @ Brett - Not sure of your knowledge of the bible, but the fact that you haven’t quoted bible verses to establish your point is of concern. I would like to point out Clossians Chapters 1. Jesus is the ruler of the world not Satan - see also Philippians 2: 5-11. Satan’s power in this world is under Jesus - in that God allows Satan to act - see Ephesians 2:2 - Satan is described as a Prince - whereas Jesus is King.

      God is loving, but he is also judging, jealous and wrathful. Go to a bible online and search for those words and you will see. God doesn’t cause sickness - Sin causes sickness not God, but in God’s judgement he allows people to go on sinning, and therefore allows suffering to be in the world as a punishment for our rebillion.

      @ Aaron - the ten commandments are still important, keeping reading more of Romans (Ch 7). Jesus reinforces the 10 commandements - see Matthew 22:34-40.

      I agree with you, worshiping idols is bad, which is why I don’t have any graven images of God, nor does my church. Paul does caution against judging. But God tells us how to judge correctly in other parts of the bible. But this point is too complex to explain. The key point, is that Christians are to let God’s word be the judge rather than our own sinful hearts.

      Your reference to 1 Cor 1:17, please read the entire verse and then verse 18, 19, 20, 21 and so on.  His point is that he is simply tell people the gospel of Jesus, and that the gospel has the power - not his own word - he is being humble.

      I agree it is very easy to find verses that meet one’s needs - but that doesn’t mean you are using them correctly. It is also very easy to dig a hole, but if you saw someone doing it with a kitchen fork you would suggest they were doing it wrong.

    • Jake says:

      04:44pm | 03/06/11

      @Simon
      “Not sure of your knowledge of the bible, but the fact that you haven’t quoted bible verses to establish your point is of concern.”

      I think that comment gave me a stroke…

    • jan says:

      12:16pm | 31/05/11

      i think this article is too simplisitic and biased against religion considering it doesn’t present solid factual arguments.  i would be very interested to know the percentage of people infected among those religious/non-religious as well as practicing against non-p;racticing religious.

    • John says:

      12:23pm | 31/05/11

      Leviticus 20;13 says that gays are aboninations and should be killed?

    • fml says:

      01:25pm | 31/05/11

      I dont think happy people should be victimised, i mean we all strive to be happy, lets all have a gay old time.

    • Matt says:

      03:17pm | 31/05/11

      The bible also says I (being homosexual) am made in God’s image.  Why would he make something to kill?  Is your version of God stupid? Did you not read the bit where the Archbishop said ‘I would never worship a homophobic God.’  Yet you do?  Leviticus was written by a man supposedly thousands of years ago… Why would I listen to him or his thousand year old opinions?

    • EB says:

      03:57pm | 31/05/11

      FML…beware of the “Gay old time” as in the Kookaburra song, when a certain school tried to have it changed because it used the word GAY….had to crack up over that one…..

    • Ted says:

      12:34pm | 31/05/11

      Seems to me the bigger issue is the men need to learn to keep their dick in their pants and the the women need to keep their legs closed. Stop blambing religions for peoples lack of morality, faithfulnes to their partner and self control.

    • fml says:

      01:26pm | 31/05/11

      Thats what sharia said!

      See what i did there :D

    • mike j says:

      12:37pm | 31/05/11

      Increasing the mortality rate in a massively overpopulated region rife with poverty, civil war and human rights abuses, where the only export is refugees and half the population depends on UN handouts just to get by?

      Best thing religion ever did.

    • David Falconer says:

      12:44pm | 31/05/11

      The Anglican Church Leaders refered to as being accepting of Darwins Faeces are not believers in God’s Word and are capable of saying or doing anything to please society, but not Christ. Are they truly even Christian. If we strictly adhere to the teachings of Jesus, all of them, there will be widespread peace. If we strictly adhere to the teachings of some other faiths, and there prophets the results may be rather different, you could even say they would be diverse. God is not willing for anyone to perish.

    • Peter says:

      01:28pm | 31/05/11

      Don’t be silly David if we all follow Islam we would all be Moslems and the world would be full of peace.  If we all followed Judeaism we would all be Jews and the world would be full of peace. and so on an so forth you see where i’m going don’t you! Following Darwinism is a bit narrow minded but I’m afraid there may be no avoiding that! Just on the topic, I think ustice Kirby’s article is a bit lopsided religious interests I believe act as a barrier to Administrative processes but the cultural tribal attitudes seem to be much more the cause of the issue.

    • Nick says:

      12:54pm | 31/05/11

      I worked with a non-christian charity organisation in Uganda and Kenya last year. In Uganda the AIDS rate actually increased as a result of the religious missionaries preaching abstinence over contraception.

      The introduction and spread of religion into Africa is showing western countries first hand how religion slowly creates a climate of fear, and turns the population to hating minorities. Kenya has already made homosexuality illegal and Uganda is trying to do the same. Although religion tries to bestow food and wealth its not without its negative externalities.

    • The Sad, Sad Truth says:

      01:08pm | 31/05/11

      The AIDS tragedy in Africa is largely due to the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception. To avoid unwanted pregnancies, African couples widely practise anal sex which of course greatly increases the risk of STI transmition.

      It’s not about sin - it’s about pragmatism. If the church actually cared and didn’t live in a complete unreality, it might actually do something to help.

    • Fred says:

      03:01pm | 31/05/11

      BUT if we a mature enough to look at the root cause, the problem is the need for these people to be having sex like rabbits with anything that moves, thus creating the means for the virus to frequent new hosts. If they actually followed their religion they would be monogamous and not have sex before marriage, thus killing the virus spread dead in it’s tracks! Funny how the basic principles which are designed to produce a cohesive society (recognising that humans stretch the “rules” for power and control) address most social ills. But as usual we blame everyone else for the reality of our own making.

    • The Sad, Sad Truth says:

      04:34pm | 31/05/11

      @Fred - We don’t expect Australians to live monogamous, no-sex-before-marriage lifestyles. Instead we try to educate our kids about safe sex and the dangers of STIs. My point (and I believe the point of the article) is that the Catholic church continues to have unrealistic expectations it’s followers and continues to let down the people it should be educating. Without a doubt there are other social problems within African cultures but it’s hard to see how things can improve when their most powerful institutions can’t do the first and most obvious thing needed to help them!

    • Tom Cruise says:

      01:17pm | 31/05/11

      Scientology is the one true religion.  Xenu brings love, while you bring $$$

    • Kika says:

      01:33pm | 31/05/11

      Xenu is the enemy in Scientology! Lol

    • Alf merck says:

      01:22pm | 31/05/11

      Religious people are so boring…...

    • JR says:

      01:34pm | 31/05/11

      Poor Country + Religion = Problems.

    • Phil says:

      01:37pm | 31/05/11

      Quick question:  Did I not read somewhere in one of those holy books, that only the be-whiskered one on high can create life?
      That being the case, why did he/she/it create such things as AIDs, Plague, cholera, typhus, infuenza, leprosy, malaria, SARS, scarlet fever, yellow fever, dengue fever etc etc etc.  Surely all living organisms were created by him/her/it?

      If that is the case and he/she/it did create all these things, then they must surely be ok and religious folk should embrace those people who are afflicted with them.

      Or is this another case of “works in mysterious ways”.  groan….

    • George says:

      01:41pm | 31/05/11

      Clearly many comments are made by people who have never read the Bible. The only reference to homosexuality states unequivocally that homosexuals must be put to DEATH. funny isn’t it that religious people talk of it only being a sin, it does not state that, it states Death. Religion has good, yes, but it also has bad and how does one tell the difference? Better, is it not?  to keep clear of the disease of religion and not become infected. One can be a decent man, a good man without this hodgepodge of good and evil

    • Kika says:

      01:45pm | 31/05/11

      Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room = the culture of Africa.

      Africa has such a huge AIDS problem because of their pathetic attitudes towards women and sex. Take religion out of it. A woman is there for a man any time he wants it. If a woman gets pregnant - her fault. If a woman gets AIDS - her fault. There must be something wrong with her or the spirits have got her.

      I don’t necessarily think the RCC have got it completely wrong when it comes to preventing the spread of HIV in Africa. They preach abstinenance. This IS the silver bullet in preventing AIDS because if you don’t have sx, you won’t get AIDS.

      An African male will say “hey I don’t want to wear one of those” and won’t. That’s it. He’s the boss. And if he cheats he will say “Hey it’s not my fault. A woman is there for a man and if it wasn’t for Eve tempting Adam..”

      Education is the key in Africa. It has nothing to do with religion or what some religious person says. African males need to get into their heads that their women are not their property and it’s not the woman’s fault if they or she gets AIDS.

    • The Sad, Sad Truth says:

      02:13pm | 31/05/11

      This is also very true. And something no one really wants to talk about.

    • fml says:

      02:48pm | 31/05/11

      What if the religious leaders say, dont use condoms or you go to hell??

      Is that the fault of the africans too?

    • Sid says:

      03:14pm | 31/05/11

      Wake up fml, your hatred is showing. Stop screwing everything and there is no need for the “protection”. But this means you need to show maturity and social responsibility, a foreign concept for you I suspect.

    • fml says:

      03:39pm | 31/05/11

      Because i despise the hatred the church has been producing for millenia?
      Because i want the church to be responsible for their actions?
      Because i want religious people to be held accountable for their brethren?
      Because i dont like how the church is dismissing their complicity and as you say, social responsibility?

      My social responsibility is showing the hypocrisy shown by the church, when they manipulate the africans “culture” and then call everyone a hater when their religious ideals have been proven to fail their supporters, if they were a government they would of been impeached, but due to fear of going to hell, most people are afraid to challenge them.

    • loulou says:

      06:26pm | 31/05/11

      Kika is right.  But many will never accept this.

    • popesicola says:

      01:55pm | 31/05/11

      All religions are fairy stories and poppycock,they propagate hate and murder

    • Harry says:

      03:09pm | 31/05/11

      Humans mis-use and distortion of religion propogates hate and murder, but ha, don’t let truth challenge YOUR propagation of hate and intolerance.

    • Logic - nothing is and everything is says:

      02:06pm | 31/05/11

      tl; dr

      using the same logic.

      Churches’ teach you to obtain from sex before marriage - therefore Churches’  Help Stop Spread of Aids.

      Stop attacking other people’s beliefs. Show some cultural sensitivity. Stop imposing your value system on other’s people’s beliefs.

    • I like the Punch says:

      02:37pm | 31/05/11

      Where in the Bible does it state sex before marriage is a sin? Which passage? Stop attacking other people’s beliefs!!!  Some beliefs are mere ignorant uneducated selfish opinions and no one has to respect such cultural sensitivity. It’s been commented already that tragically a great many non religious Africans are going to die slowly in extreme agony and ain’t gonna go to heaven. God is Great

    • Another Chris says:

      02:58pm | 31/05/11

      @I Like the Punch…

      Here are some verses:

      1 Corinthians 7:2
      But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

      Colossians 3:5
      5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

      Hebrews 13:4 (ESV)
      Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

      So… there you go. There are more verses, this is just a cross section.

    • hamster says:

      03:01pm | 31/05/11

      @I like the Punch : * DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
      If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

      So while not a sin perhaps, it’s kinda rough on the bride to be.

    • Another Chris says:

      03:41pm | 31/05/11

      @Hamster… Appropriate you mention Deuteronomy…

      if you read the New Testament, you will see that Jesus died to do a way with the Law of the Old Testament. Sacrifices and the rest.

      Another classic example of taking the Bible out of Context and using it to your own devices.

    • Lostie says:

      05:03pm | 31/05/11

      I’m a little out of practice here, but I’ll have a go,  and limit myself to the new testament to boot. (note: this means no Commandments, since they were the old, vengeful God before God 2.0 (Jesus) was released upon the world).

      I’ll point to Acts 15:20 which prohibits fornication,  1 Corinthians 5:11, Matthew also has a bit to say about it.

      The thing that should be remembered is that Adultery is sex with anyone who is not your spouse. If you do not have a spouse, it is clear that any person that you lay with must not be your spouse.

      But I think 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 sums it up best:

        8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 

      * referring to his abstinence after saying “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ” in 1 Corinthians 7:1 *

        9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

      It Seems pretty clear what he has in mind for those who partake in the pleasures of the flesh outside of marriage.

      As for setting aside the old Testament - Jesus himself had something to say about that - See Matt 5:17.

    • David Stasey says:

      05:20pm | 31/05/11

      @Another Chris… Appropriate you mention Jesus
      if you read the New Testament (Matthew 5:17-18), you will see that Jesus confirmed the Law of the Old Testament. Sacrifices and the rest.
      Another classic example of selectively quoting the Bible and using it to your own devices. (Or did your bible come with an extra sheet telling you which bits are more godly and which bits you can ignore?)

    • Another Chris says:

      01:46am | 01/06/11

      @ David Stasey… great that you should mention that because you’re right… Jesus upheld the Law…(law with an L) the Ten Commandments..
      law…with a little L is the law of the land… the punishment was decided by the governing body… these were two different things. Law of God,  and Government law.
      Jesus WAS the sacrifice so your remark there is nullified…  When Jesus was crucified, the veil of the tabernacle was torn in two…the most sacred place where sacrifices took place destroyed. And as you would know (seeing as you’re quoting scripture) Jesus is referred to as the Lamb RE: Sacrificial.
      I should have clarified a big L from a little l in my previous post.

    • David Stasey says:

      10:31am | 01/06/11

      @Another Chris… Appropriate you mention that. Actually it probably isn’t.
      So you did get a special sheet?
      Or do you just pick and choose your bibles. King James NOT capitalised while New International is. New Revised Standard is NOT etc.
      In any case, show me where ANY version CLEARLY (not another interpretation or MANufactured nit picking from your “fact sheet” because there are just as many examples of the opposite) states your claim.

    • David Stasey says:

      10:32am | 01/06/11

      @Another Chris… Appropriate you mention that. Actually it probably isn’t.
      So you did get a special sheet?
      Or do you just pick and choose your bibles. King James NOT capitalised while New International is. New Revised Standard is NOT etc.
      In any case, show me where ANY version CLEARLY (not another interpretation or MANufactured nit picking from your “fact sheet” because there are just as many examples of the opposite) states your claim.

    • Kate says:

      02:12pm | 31/05/11

      Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was widely accepted by the churches when it was written, actually.
      Shows how far religious ignorance has progressed in the intervening years.

    • Aaron says:

      02:15pm | 31/05/11

      You know, I think that religion has very little to do with the spread of aids. This statement says it all: “provide expensive anti-retroviral treatment for HIV” The pharmaceutical companies are the ones who really need to be examined, not christians. Why would the drug companies want to cure this disease when they can make billions in profit from the treatments. There’s far more money in the treatment than in the cure.

      Rather than pointing the finger at religion, in particular christians (which seems to be all the rage today), why not focus on the people who can ACTUALLY HELP get this disease under control. Straight, Gay, African, it doesn’t matter, a christians job is to show love to these people, regardless of whether they agree with their lifestyle, race, or gender. What matters is that the people with the power to really help, to give the kind of funding needed to help cure this disease, are sitting back and raking in the profits.

      Yes, churches (at least some) take in a large amount of money, but none have the infrastructure at the disposal of the drug companies. Let’s get on their case, instead of bashing religion, who didn’t cause the problem, nor are their solutions entirely useless, albeit impractical and unpopular.

    • marley says:

      03:00pm | 31/05/11

      The pharmaceutical companies make good money out of HIV drugs sold in the west, but not a lot out of the drugs they sell more or less at cost in Africa and the developing world.  And they spend billions on research.  The company that comes up with an effective vaccine is going to make zillions.

    • Aaron says:

      03:43pm | 31/05/11

      Not necessarily. Why would they do a one time cure when they can make money off the treatment, it’s not like they’re not already doing it; they are. I would hope that they do come up with a cure/vaccine and distribute it, but they are a profit business.

    • Dave says:

      02:16pm | 31/05/11

      How about we forget the religous rubbish and look at it from a government point of view?

      Religion is made up and dont even bother arguing that. The only reason we believe religion is because we dont know (definitavely) all the science behind our world. Sure religion teaches some good things, love forgiveness etc… but does that out wiegh all the problems it has caused?

      AIDS / HIV is a problem, early education, distribution of condoms, needle exchange programs, research, regular STI testing, more education etc is all needed. But this is a health issue, and when i want health advice, ill go to my doctor not my priest. Roman catholics have probly caused some of this problem them selves

      “Hey father! Your married to the church so you cant have sex or get married to a women”

      “Thats ok man in the sky with a magic wand, ill just touch some little boys instead, make them turn to drugs and have sexuality problems in the future, they can then spread AIDS and ill then hate them and say how they have sinned,  thats cool yeah?”

      “As long as you can bend some words from a book written by people who where severely uneducated in a time of little scientific evolution thousands of years ago to justify it, then yes, thats ok with me.”

      “Thanks Big G, you’re the man. Now that thats settled, i might go take some money off the community, take up an hour of their sunday and get paid to do not much at all. It’s all completly hypocritical to the text from which i preach, but its been done for years so why change? Catach ya!”

      BS

    • Mark Holmans says:

      02:39pm | 31/05/11

      No…Peoples inability to refrain from Sex is causing the spread of AIDS

    • Jim says:

      02:39pm | 31/05/11

      In my line of work I’ve met a lot of ex-pat South Africans…all of them talk about the AIDS epidemic, citing it as part of the reason they left - none of them have blamed religion!

      Rape is the biggest problem there, and the popular belief that the only way to cure HIV is to have sex with a virgin…it doesn’t matter if the virgin is 19 or 9. One fellow I worked with fled the country after his 2 month old niece was raped by 3 men.

    • bikinis on top says:

      02:54pm | 31/05/11

      did religion also help spread the bubonic plague in Christian Europe in the 14th century as well?
      Will religion be the death of the free world where only deadly diseases are free of charge? Are religions the aids to AIDS??
      Where are the cures for AIDS??

    • SA says:

      02:55pm | 31/05/11

      Strongly agree with Kika about education.

      People’s behaviour won’t change until the core reason for that behavour is changed. People are trying to treat the symptoms but not the cause.

      Ignorance is what is prevailing this country, they just don’t know any better.
      And religion doesn’t help because what it’s preaching (absintinence) clashes completely with African culture. It’s just a huge waste of time and resources, that would be far better spent on building schools and getting teachers and EDUCATIONAL resources out there.

    • SA says:

      03:25pm | 31/05/11

      Ugh I meant ABSTINENCE.

    • Leah says:

      03:05pm | 31/05/11

      Kirby obviously has a limited understanding of the church’s objection to homosexuality.

      “The church” objected to Galileo and Copernicus for reasons based on their ‘traditions’. It objects to homosexuality for reasons based on the bible. Two entirely different scenarios. The idea that the sun revolves around the earth was one that church leaders made up, not one that could be found in their religious text that they followed. (The only place I am aware of, in the bible, that mildly suggests the sun revolves around the earth is in a song, or piece of poetry, in the book of psalms. And I’m sure nobody expects songs and poems to be scientifically accurate, but understands the allegory used in them).

      Homosexuality, however, is explicitly condemned in the bible. It’s not something church leaders just came up with because they thought it made sense. It also can’t be put down to just allegory or one particular person’s opinion, as it is repeated many times in many different parts of the bible.

      I am not aware of any church that is “in denial” re: homosexuality. What does that even mean? They just say that it’s not right. God is not homophobic, nor does he hate homosexuals. But, according to the bible, he does hate homosexuality. Desmond Tutu was right. The bible says to love everybody. It does not, however, say to love everybody’s lifestyles or choices.

      Read the bible and you would discover that nobody is God’s friend and everybody is God’s enemy unless they trust in Jesus. You might think that is stupid, but you are not going to convince any Christian or Catholic that you are “God’s friend” just because you want to spread spirituality and love. (Oh, and btw, harping on and spreading this hate against people who disagree with homosexuality isn’t exactly loving).

      The idea that the Christian or Catholic church (which is what you’re really blaming here - not ‘religion’) is to blame for the spread of HIV is a joke. HIV is consistently a major problem in third world countries with corrupt governments and bad hygeine practices and lack of understanding of the disease. If it was thanks to the church, we should see a much higher infection rate in countries like the US and Italy! And, as correctly pointed out earlier, the church preaches abstinence outside of marriage. If people followed this, there wouldn’t be ANY spread of HIV! Yet you criticise this teaching of the church? What do you want people to do- follow the church’s teachings, or not? If they pick and choose which teachings to follow then yes, there will be trouble. But you can’t blame the church for that. Pagan/voodoo religions are actually very guilty for spreading HIV due to their “have sex with a virgin and you will be cured of aids” belief, governments are guilty for not educating their citizens on how HIV is spread, and for not providing adequate healthcare.

      In Kenya, 6.3% of the adult population has HIV/AIDS yet over 70% are Catholic/Protestant Christian. In Uganda, 6.5% of the adult population has HIV/AIDS, yet over 80% is Catholic/Protestant Christian. In the US, 0.6% of the adult population has HIV/AIDS, and about 75% is Catholic/Protestant Christian. In Italy, 0.3% of the adult population has HIV/AIDS, and 90% of the population is Catholic alone (ie, not incl. protestant christians).

      The same high % of Catholicism/Christianity, yet significantly different HIV infection rates. You really think the Catholic/Christian church is helping spread AIDS??

    • Liam says:

      03:54pm | 31/05/11

      I wish the corrupt, depraved, immoral and wicked Catholic/Christian church didn’t exist. Stop spending you’re time talking about make believe Leah!

    • Suzanne says:

      03:58pm | 31/05/11

      How nice of God to create people and bestow upon them the very thing he hates. What kind of a ‘father’ intentionally does that to a child he’s supposed to love unconditionally?

      And since god has allegedly created us in his own image, does that mean god is gay? Is that why he hates homosexuality, because of self-loathing??

    • Another Chris says:

      04:53pm | 31/05/11

      @Liam…Amazing Liam… is that all you got out of that post by Leah??
      Sweeping blanket statements about the church is total guff… tell that to the Missionaries in Africa working to help the locals..
      Wicked people exist everywhere. The church is not perfect and never will be but gosh- wake up and stop making excuses for yourself to hate the church.

    • Chris says:

      07:15pm | 31/05/11

      Leah, I think Kirby has some understanding of the churches’ objection to homosexuality: he is an ex-High Court judge, a homosexual,  and also a practising (liberal) Anglican. 

      Secondly, the Catholic Church does not take its ethical positions from the Bible but employs natural law ethics which, in their original form, were articulated by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.  The question of the naturalness or otherwise of homosexuality is very apposite to any natural law enquiry.

      Also, every mainline denomination now teaches critical methods of interpreting scripture in their theological colleges.  Which century are you in?

    • Liam says:

      12:18pm | 01/06/11

      Another Chris I believe the whole basis of the Catholic Church is shameful. I scoff at anyone that writes about Jesus Christ as if it’s a valid consideration. The history of “the church” and missionaries is deplorable. As for those missionaries in Africa now - good on them for helping, but maybe they could STOP TALKING ABOUT AND PREACHING MAKE-BELIEVE AND GET REAL. Religion and the church are not real Chris - it’s all made up! And it’s the cause of more hate, anguish, misery and evil than anything else in human history.

    • hamster says:

      03:09pm | 31/05/11

      @Jim - Thabo Mbeki (the previous President of SA) stated that HIV does not cause AIDS - he stopped funding for treatment for many years and is resonsible for the deaths of thousands. The current President - Zuma, stated publicy that he avoided HIV infection by taking a shower after unprotected sex…So while religion is not helping, it’s ignorance that is causing the AIDS epidemic in SA.

    • mel says:

      03:16pm | 31/05/11

      Promiscuity spreads AIDS, Mr Kirby.  Deliver all the addresses you wish -  it won’t change the facts.

    • Roman Catholic says:

      03:45pm | 31/05/11

      Dr Ed Green former Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard School of Health, worked for many years promoting condoms and family planning in Third World Countries. He also spent many years trying to persuade the AIDS industry that condom promotion campaigns ON THEIR OWN DO NOT REDUCE THE SPREAD OF AIDS in general populations and that what HAS WORKED BEST is the ABC policy devised in Uganda by Ugandans in the late 1980’s-1990’s. ABC stands for ABSTAIN, BE FAITHFUL and if you can’t manage that use a CONDOM.  Promiscuity kills condoms or not. HIV is only one form of killer. HPV is another. HPV passes through condoms….........that’s another debate.

    • Pope Is Dope says:

      03:47pm | 31/05/11

      First you have to believe in a virgin giving birth to a baby.  Then you have to believe that the Bible was accurately translated between languages.  Then you have to stop eating shellfish, working on the Sabbath and women from wearing pants.  Then you have to consider that 3/4 of the world are not Christians and by the rule of numbers your religion is more likely to be wrong.  Anyone who disagrees will get stoned…

    • RyaN says:

      04:20pm | 31/05/11

      How about you just butt out for a change and mind your own business. Let Africa learn how to stand on its own two feet without the intervention of the west.

    • Outraged says:

      08:28pm | 31/05/11

      LOL that is fine by me! I would love our country to stop pumping millions of dollars of aid into the bottomless pit that is Africa!

    • RyaN says:

      02:20pm | 01/06/11

      @Outraged: now if only we could get our inconsiderate, meddling leaders to do the same. Its about time that “teenager” Africa was kicked out on its arse to learn to fend for itself. Tough love is required.

    • Ali says:

      04:44pm | 31/05/11

      Religion is helping the spread of AIDS.

      And heres me thinking it was just unprotected sex and druggies.

      Thats it in not going to church. I dont wanna catch AIDS

    • Malcolm says:

      04:45pm | 31/05/11

      In the early days of AIDS, I remember an interview with a 22-year-old man who had been HIV positive for 5 years. Now, 22-5=17. This young man had received a death sentence because, while he was still at high school, he had been seduced by an adult homosexual. Logically, this sort of tragedy could be avoided if young people were taught to avoid such sexual contacts, literally like the plague. Yet Justice Kirby is saying that the best way to stop the spread of the disease is to stop “stigmatizing” it ie treat it as normal and acceptable.
      There will always be people who will be told, no matter what you say - and that includes advice about “safe sex” - but teaching them that certain behaviours are wrong, and totally unacceptable, is the best way to get them to avoid the consequences of such behaviour.

    • marley says:

      06:55pm | 31/05/11

      No, he’s saying that the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is to educate people about the risks of casual sexual encounters, and the comparative safety of using a condom.  Any religious group that has an issue with condoms, is contributing to the problem.

    • Tim says:

      04:55pm | 31/05/11

      So the Christian virtue of monogamy- having one sexual partner in life- is spreading aids more than sexual liberty-having sex whoever you want?
      Yeah, that makes heaps of sense!

    • Roberto says:

      05:04pm | 31/05/11

      Religion isn’t the problem. It’s a lack of moral behavior that’s the problem.

    • rita says:

      05:22pm | 31/05/11

      AIDS got into Australia not because Australians are particularly religious.
      Blaming the church for condemning the sinners? There is no compulsory church membership!!
      Many religious restrictions come from the ancient/pagan knowledge of preserving species. No community should advocate self-destruction.
      The cause of AIDS and other STDs is in multiple sexual partnership.
      We are not allowed to smoke because it is a health hazard. We are not allowed to cross the red lights because it is a health hazard. But we cannot even touch any subject on risky sexual relationships. Just wonder why?
      Blaming the church who condemns risky sex practices is really beyond me.
      It is not merely a religion; it is a common sense not to engage in unhealthy, risky practices. Particularly if one thinks about bearing healthy babies.
      The author is also wrong about Copernicus.  He was never condemned by the church. What a hogwash!
      And compare spreading AIDS to the ‘unscientific’ church practices is also beyond me. It was mainly through the church that medical sciences developed!. Check out history of the church.
      Just wondering why some tribal practices in Africa do not get mentioning.. After all, church in Africa has no real influence or power. Neither it has in Australia.
      It seems to me that the whole article is more about religions that AIDS.

    • stephen says:

      05:39pm | 31/05/11

      HIV/AIDS is certainly a medical as well as a humanitarian problem in Africa, but I don’t think religion is to blame, which, of course, may be the saviour of those who resisted in the first instance.

      PS Hate to say it, but I think this time God had nothing to do with it.

    • loulou says:

      06:36pm | 31/05/11

      Yes, medical. It’s a male rectum/sex/multiple partners thing, isn’t it?  I don’t think blaming religion helps. But it may help Mr. Kirby.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:30pm | 31/05/11

      Hi Lostie, It seems from the many that post that are not willing to seek knowledge you are, because instead of insisting you are right without having the facts to confirm it you ask for help and this is refreshing.

      You asked Lostie if I would supply a link about the Medical Statement I made in regards to Aids but as I read some of your posts it seems you are unaware of the Teaching in the new Testament in regards to Aids, although I’m not sure so please advise if I’m in error.

      Of course the word Aids is not mentioned with it being a modern word like Dinosaurs, Rapture. Trinity, D.N.A etc but the Scriptures refer to them all in a way that leaves no doubt as to what they are in reference to.

      So as we are focusing on Aids lets look at the Scripture that refers to it by describing how it originates,  I will post again soon in regard to the link you asked for but for now I will take one Truth at a time because they all shed light on the Statement I made.

      I will use a Modern adapted Translation of the Scriptures for those who have trouble understanding the old English text but like you I mainly use K.J.V as well as the Greek and Hebrew. The Translation below is confirmed in the Greek and is not in error. It would also be helpful if you read the whole Chapter so it will be in context and in the K.J. V if wanted or any other accepted Translation . As you no doubt know all Scripture because it is inspired by God is relevant and refers not just to the past but is for the present and for the future. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

      Romans 1 :24 -27 Therefore God our Creator gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to Sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the Truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the created things rather than the Creator who is the Lord and is to be praised forever Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their Women exchanged Natural sexual relations for Unnatural ones.  In the same way the Men also abandoned Natural relations with Women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other Men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their wrong doing.

      We need to remember as often quoted and so True… God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

      Another Scripture that may enlighten you Lostie is 1 John 3:1-11 it packs a powerful punch for those who have not read it with understanding and there are many other Scriptures that confirm it.

      Take Care Lostie I will post again soon - Kind regards Anne.

    • David Stasey says:

      09:47pm | 31/05/11

      @Anne Stocks.
      Oh Annie, you are not answering me on the education thread but I see you are posting here (and have promised to post again soon) so I will repeat myself. I must give you every opportunity to keep your word. We couldn’t have you telling fibs even if it is inadvertant.

      You have made the following offers.” also I have a blue card would you like the number ?” and “do you want the name of my Doctors?”
      I’ll take you up on both of these. Please either post them here or send the details to davidstasey@live.com.au.
      I am in Melbourne. I assume from your reference to a “blue card” that you are in Queensland.
      Cheers.

    • Rhino says:

      10:09am | 01/06/11

      Ah Anne, Dog didn’t make Adam and Eve, or Adam and Steve.

      Mitochondrial DNA analysis determined that Eve, came first (Eve being a human women somewhere in Africa we all share ancestry with). Then many (thousands of) years later came Adam, which is determined via Y chromosome analysis (again, we share ancestry with this man). Whoops, another bible fuck up, especially considering we were not made at all, but share a common ancestry with these long lost humans and all the others before them.

      So tell me Anne, which one Adam or Eve was colour blind?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:23pm | 01/06/11

      Hi Lostie, in answer to your request for a Link on Aids to support what I shared Medically about it, please see my post to Jake it may still be up top if not scroll down. It is very simular to the one I posted to you yesterday but I have added more and Links.

      I hope also that you had a chance to read the Scripture I shared if so you will understand my focus.

      Perhaps what may be beneficial is for those who doubt my statement is for them to prove to me I am wrong without providing one or two of the many different unproven theories which often contradict each other on the Internet for proof or ape what others believe is True or even claim what they think is right when they have no confirmation or proof that it is so.

      Anyway I will leave it to them now and we will see - Kind regards Anne

    • big kev says:

      09:27pm | 31/05/11

      those who play in sewage pipes deserve to get sick ?

    • gra gra says:

      10:09pm | 31/05/11

      You are right, all of you beautiful, merciful, loving christians. Religion is not to blame. The blame lies with those who expound it.  The Pope, an expert on sexual matters , says, “Don’t use contraception”. The medical profession says, “To avoid S.T.D use contraception”. Who do we trust? The trained expert, the doctor, or the bloke wearing a dress who supervises the biggest single collection of homosexual rapists in our society? I think in this instance I’ll go with the trained medical expert rather than with the Pope. And I think that this particular Pope was a Nazi youth graduate. Am I right?
      All Christians are sexual deviate supporters. They worship some mystical, (false), being that got a virgin pregnant to whom he wasn’t married. Not very
      “christian” was it. Just par for the course, really.

    • Barry Simpson says:

      10:15pm | 31/05/11

      This forum is just full of tribalist hacks parroting what their cult would have them believe, and the worst offenders are the secular-humanist crew. The fact is that religions (except the religion of evolution) have the best solution to countering the spread of this hideous sickness.
      So let me understand this, you brainwashed-beyond-hope secular-humanist morons. The religious principal of one sexual partner for life, not your principal of nail whatever you like and however many you like, is the cause of this spread… You are well, well beyond hope, you thouroughly, oh-so thoroughly brainwashed, mindless sheep.

    • Pot Kettle Black says:

      01:28am | 01/06/11

      BAZZA!!! oh mate that was hillarious…

      religion of evolution? hahaha

      First of all, do you have any idea what you are talking about? These african nations are some of the most religious nations on earth, they ARE true to thier faiths and believe it probably a lot more than you do yours.

      Maybe if you picked up an actual book of learning rather than fairy tales you might learn how to construct a logical and informed opinion. Sadly that last line of your comment is so hipocritical I almost chocked on my coffee.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      05:06am | 01/06/11

      Bazza Simpson…you just dont get it and cant accept the fact that not everyone sees your fairies at the end of the garden.
      As Stpehen Hawking brilliantly recentlyReligion and Heaven are for those that are afraid of the dark.
      There is no cult of evolution that has me believing, I dont have a great wizard either here on earth, in my mind or living in the clouds that tells me what to think and how I should behave, I think and act in a way that I know is right.
      The religious principle of one partner does not apply to all countries on the planet, remember your imaginary firend may not be their official sky fairy so do the same rules apply to them, what if their sky fairy is actually the one and only creator and not yours?
      We and the church both have the ability to do something about this incideous disease, unfortunately the organised religious heirachy have declared that condoms, the best way of stopping this, are not to be allowed so in fact are amplifying the problem not helping.
      It needs education and help.
      How do you stop a 3 year old child who was born with this disease througgh no fault of their own, from dying, telling them that one sexual partner for life because my sky fairy decrees it just doesnt wash. You my friend are the one beyond hope you mindless, spineless, brainwashed sheep.

    • Martin Davies says:

      11:29pm | 31/05/11

      ignorance is a curse that most religious leaders aspire too. The fear they feed off is far easier than working to understand the complexities of this world. I welcome Mr Kirby’s strong words but rational argument will not sway those of faith who are plainly intolerant and ignorant as to the human condition. It is therefore essential that regular men and woman of voting age chose who they vote for carefully such that they do not endorse those who seek to validate the ignorance of those who seek to promote religion at the expense of vulnerable people.

    • Martin Kennedy says:

      01:18am | 01/06/11

      The bibble states : Deuteronomy 21:18-21 to stone your disobedient children to death or Luke 12:47 The servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows, now if we are to take this litterally then all good christians should be out stoning and killing there children and beating there slaves but we dont take these passages litterally do we, so why are we picking and choosing and using the bible to bully members of the human family, gay people. God said love the man but not the sin, but for many christians love for there fellow man seems to go south once the word gay is introduced into the equation where is your love for your fellow man, what many fail to realise is the bible was based on an a culture of the ancient world and cannot logically be expected to be our culture now, some religious fanatics pick and choose certain passages from the bible to use as a weapon knowing that playing on peoples fear and hate and talking about what devides and makes us different is a tried and trusted formula with many poor souls suckered into its all consuming bottom line message of hate, one doesnt have to look very far for example either, this week we have seen the Australian Christian Lobby have posters removed that conveyed a very important message on HIV and safe sex that had an important role in saving lives, and then we have what many consider to be the fanatical cheery on top of the cake Westboro Baptist Church with there god loving site godhatesfags.com God doesnt hate, man hates! On a daily basis more than any other community gay men and woman throughout the world are abused, killed, raped and completely devalued yet they are some of the kindest most talented warm and loving people you will ever meet it must take incredible courage to live in a world that greets you with hate and utter contempt let alone being a gay child or teenager that is relentlessly bullied to the point of suicide too bad we can’t bring back the 10 teenage boys betwwen the ages of 13-18 that all took there own lives in one month recently, no peers and no support all gay all dead, my child your child our children. Its about time the human family took a good long look at itself and started realising there are no male problems or female problems or gay problems or religous problems and if for one moment we can get rid of all the crazy noise then we will finally realise that there are only human problems.

      A friend sent me this thismornig which sums up part of the current human condition.

      Aliens out in space were looking down on Earth.

      One said, “It seems the dominent life forms have developed satelite-based weapons”.

      The second asked, “Are they an emerging intelligence?”

      “I don’t think so”, the first responded, “They have the weapons pointed at themselves.

    • Brendan says:

      03:16am | 01/06/11

      Here’s an analogy, having unprotected sex with an HIV infected partner is similar to putting a gun with 6 chambers and 1 bullet to your head and pulling the trigger. Wearing a condom is similar to putting a gun with 100 chambers and 1 bullet to your head and pulling the trigger. Yes wearing a condom will decrease the chance of getting “unlucky”, but both acts are extremely risky, only to different extents. The Catholic church advocates not putting the gun to your head at all and for this they are blamed for every single HIV infected person in Africa. If every single African was Catholic (only 1 out of 6 actually is) and they all followed the bible to the letter (very few Catholics do), then there would be no premarital or extramarital sex and the infection rate would be almost non-existent. The reason why the infection rate in Africa is so high isn’t because the Africans follow the teachings of the Catholic church but specifically because they don’t. Saying that it is impractical not to have risky premarital or extramarital promiscuous sex in a country with a very high infection rate is ridiculous. What is impractical is taking the risk in the first place and dying a slow painful death. Yes education about HIV is needed in Africa, but part of that education should be that condoms will decrease the chance of getting infected with HIV for each encounter, however if you take the risk even with condoms enough times there is a good chance you will become HIV infected and no amount of raping innocent virgins is going to cure you. But nah…..let just blame the Catholics with convoluted and specious reasoning, much easier than actually understanding the problem or trying to implement solutions that will actually save lives. Basically the Catholic argument is sexually transmitted diseases are sexually transmitted diseases, preposterous I know!

    • Jake says:

      04:58pm | 02/06/11

      @Brendan
      Let me apply your reasoning to a different example.

      Crossing the street in the middle of a busy highway is similar to putting a gun to your head with 6 chambers and 1 bullet. Crossing at a zebra crossing is like putting a gun to your head with 100 chambers and 1 bullet. By your logic, would it not be wise to advocate never crossing the street at all?

      We all take risks in our lives, and suggesting that the only sensible mitigation for a risk is to avoid it altogether is both unrealistic and foolish. One can enjoy sex with multiple partners with a very high degree of safety if they exercise a little common sense. Most of us do and as a result, most of us never catch any form of STD.

      Certainly, your risk of catching an STD are lower if you never have sex, or only have sex with a person who has never had sex with anyone else, but saying that the only safe option is abstinence before marriage is just silly.

      For the record, protected sex with a HIV positive partner is closer to a gun with 10,000 chambers and one bullet according to the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm) so you’re more likely to die before your date than you are contracting AIDS from your partner. It’s a hard subject to find good statistics for due to the difficulty of gathering reliable data, but 1 in 100 is a bit rich.

    • The Doc says:

      05:01am | 01/06/11

      I expect a higher standard from a former judge. What a giant porky. Religion is not the cause of AIDS, the main reason is promiscuity. The Catholic Church for example is the largest provider of AIDS hospices/centres in the world. By a long margin. Something like 115,000!

    • loulou says:

      11:59am | 01/06/11

      Why would you expect a higher standard?  Kirby is not exactly a disinterested person.  Naturally enough, he fears homosexuality/promiscuity will be blamed for the spread of AIDS in Africa.

    • MrEd says:

      05:28am | 01/06/11

      I love the new “Optionality” in religion these days.

      All religions (that I am aware of ) follow the teachings of profits or wise men from centuries ago,.
      They all have basic tenants in written text that the believers are to follow.

      Yet these days its all about “optionality” , - dont like that bit of the holey script, so I’ll just ignore that bit and get on with the bit I do like.

      Come on, your either religious or your not. You either follow the requirements of your faith or you dont. Or do you just ignore that little postcript about fire and brimestone in relation to the “optional bits” you dont like?

      Fair Dinkum this sounds like a great solution. I dont like the bit in the local law about no thieving, but I want to have a nice big TV, and a flash new car, so I’ll only steal enough to suite my lifestyle, then claim I am a honest law abiding citizen. Those bits of the law I dont like are only optional after all…...

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:11am | 01/06/11

      Hello Paul, It was encouraging to read your strong Stand for God’s Truth,  thank you for sharing and may you be greatly blessed for doing so. I have much respect for a person who is not afraid to speak against the accepted although wrong Liberal teaching in our Society today and sadly that is in some Churches too.
      Thank you for also defending and upholding Woman as valuable and people of worth and yes I agree with you many are treated as a commodity and not treated with respect or regarded as a gift from God. .
      But I feel with the feminist movement which is infiltrating some of the Churches that Men also are not being upheld in their God given role of Leadership and yes as you said this is to be Sacrificial but for a woman to fulfilled and content they need to thankfully accept their high calling as a Man’s Helpmate whether that be in Marriage or the Church and to submit willingly to their Godly Leadership and not seek to be in Authority over them in the role of a Ordained preacher. This does not mean a Woman has no value under Man’s Leadership or that she can’t express her gifts as she feels lead and as we know both Men and Woman are to share God’s Truth as well as to correct error and rebuke and warn if someone is heading in to dangerous waters by sinning.
      Sadly many Men are not nurtured in their Leadership role from Childhood and can also not have the right role models. If their Mother is very domineering they will show effeminate mannerisms and leanings from an early age which can lead to Homosexuality,  sometimes it causes them to resent Woman and seek to dominate them in retaliation.  A domineering Mother can also have a bad influence on their daughters and they will copy their bad example in marriage etc . This of course applies to fathers who advocated their leadership role or are overbearing and controlling..
      But as you said Paul regardless of the background as Born again Christians both Man and Woman with the empowering of The Holy Spirit are to walk in righteousness and obedience to God which shows our Love for Him .
      In reference to sin as you mentioned it is True that many claim that it is alright to sin even as Christians because we are forgiven and not under the Law but Grace,  but there is a warning in the Scriptures that is often overlooked because of other Scriptures being read out of context and these verses below are also confirmed as God’s Truth in many other parts of the Bible. But we know without putting the evil flesh nature to death by the Spirit and being perfected in Love we will not walk in Victory but be in bondage to sin.
      1John 3:4-10 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that He appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin. No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the Children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not Love his brother.
      Thank you again Paul - Christian Love Anne.

    • I Feed the Trolls says:

      10:05am | 01/06/11

      Wow, another mind destroying post from you… I have some other nuggets to help you troll better though they seem right up your alley.

      Geocentrism and Flat Earth Theory… Add those into the mix and you will move from full blown whacko to hmmm well some higher plane of existence for fully blown whackos… lol

    • GutheruckenRacey says:

      10:49am | 01/06/11

      This 2000 plus years game of Chinese Whispers is the best. I feel there is another solution from the equally factual ‘Gospel according to The Simpsons’. Lisa proposes that rocks keep away tigers. I feel that such a power could extend to not only stopping homosexuality but ridding the world of AIDS all together. And thanks to internet comment sections, we don’t even need to get 12 unemployed dudes in bath robes to spread the word of ‘the rock’. Get typing people.

    • Adam says:

      08:12am | 01/06/11

      Michael Kirby, you being a ex-judge, would know that there are all types of “wrong” being committed across the world.  Rape, murder to name a few.

      Yet, you misrepresent the Desmond Tutu and say he was only talking about gays, however, that is at odds with the context of the quote that you used.

      It seems like you’re more interested in bagging people at any opportunity who simply won’t endorse your lifestyle.

    • John Holmes says:

      09:16am | 01/06/11

      My only contribution to this argument is that ALL religion is crap.So leave it out of any argument, it is meaningless.

    • gra gra says:

      09:20am | 01/06/11

      Mr Ed..“All religions, (that I am aware of), follow the teachings of profits…..”.
      A little Freudian slip, perhaps?
      To those who say that Africans would be better off not practicing pre-marital sex, not being promiscuous, and not respecting virgins I simply say, “Read your bible and take note of what YOU say your god did to Mary”. Perhaps those Africans are just following his example.
      Anne Stocks, you are a little remiss in not giving balance in your childish ramble in that you made no mention of the cruelty shown by those lovely ladies, the catholic nuns. And no mention of paediphile priests. Surely you are aware of these despicable acts practiced in the name of religion? The Pope is, but he doesn’t really care as long as those evil practitioners of perversity bring in the money. The church, any old church, advises celibacy, restraint, yet allows homosexual deviates to wander from parish to parish with gay abandon, (ok, it slipped in), commiting their perversions on innocent children. “Suffer little children to come unto me”?. Not on your bloody nelly!

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:24am | 01/06/11

      How could you have done such an awful thing gra gra that poor woman and her boyfriend not to mention that dear little girl how evil you are gra gra… no way would I ever employ you let alone let you talk to the children that I care for… you wicked bad person,  do you know what I’m going to do, I’m going to contact the Paper and tell them how rotten you are ...shame on you,  shame , shame,  shame.

      So gra gra do you personally take responsibility for what that poor confused and hurting man did recently not that we dismiss his actions as ok…  he killed his wife,  her friend and his little girl but why? what about all those who do dreadful evil acts that hurt others out of revenge, hate greed etc do you take the blame for their actions as well and are you willing to allow others who are also evil in their flesh nature to ridicule and put you down for what others have done and also accept that they consider you as worthless ...

      Jesus Christ did,  He died for all Mankind and He understands why we have and do the things we do and although He still hates sin and does not condone it,  He does not hate the sinner but He does long for us all to come to heart repentance so we will be set free from the bondage of sin and not be a slave to it .

      Sadly your spirit is not Loving or forgiving but judgmental gra gra at least it seems so by your words but I do not know you personally although God does but if what you wrote does reflect your True feelings then even though you are mixing poison for others to drink you are drinking it yourself.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne.

    • Another Chris says:

      11:45am | 01/06/11

      @gra gra, what flippant sweeping statements you make. You seem to be holding onto this gay priest thing pretty tightly and blaming the entire church. The offending priest population are but a small fraction of the Catholic church and hardly the entire church..I’m not dismissing the crime or the actions of the upper echelons but you must be an outsider looking in to paraphrase in such a way. Most of the behaviour you speak of goes back at least a generation (the 80’s/70’s).
      Ultimately, no man or woman is with out sin and as Jesus said, let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Is the Church with out Sin? No, certainly not. The Church is human after all. That said, you seem to conveniently forget the good that Christianity does world wide on the whole. I believe it’s in a far larger proportion to the crimes (whilst terrible) that you speak of. Are you trying to find any reason you can to hate Christianity? It seems like the typical (and tired) response I hear from people these days.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:38am | 01/06/11

      sir ronald bradnam says… How do you stop a 3 year old child who was born with this disease through no fault of their own, from dying, telling them that one sexual partner for life because my sky fairy decrees it just doesn’t wash.

      We can all do something by Lovingly getting out our Check books etc and sending them help,  in this way they have Medical and practical assistance such as food, clothes education and clean water as well as being educated on how to live without this dreadful disease spreading and also having hope for the future, many of these Children do not die and with help and teaching them skills they live productive lives learning to provide for themselves and their families ...

      But perhaps Sir Ronald you already support them… as I said before it is hard to make judgments about other people good or bad when you don’t know them personally but in regard to bad judgments about others based on our own agenda then we need to be careful because if we ... 

      Critically judge anyone we are judging ourselves because we are seeing in them is what is in ourselves… it’s like a mirror we see our own reflection ... sad but true.

      We are also to be patient and tolerant of others weaknesses and shortcomings we have many ourselves but of course with God’s agenda we are to rebuke, correct and warn those who are sinning but with Love and a humble spirit remembering without God’s grace we would also be punished for our sins,  yes we are all rotten through and through and this is why the Scriptures tell us we need to come to heart repentance so we can reflect Jesus’ goodness.

      Take Care Sir Ronald and be carful also about your reflection - Kind regards Anne.

    • David Stasey says:

      10:39am | 01/06/11

      @Anne Stocks.
      Hey Annie. Suddenly you are ignoring me. (My post at 9;47 last night)
      Everyone knows that you read them I am not going to go away.
      You are just looking sillier.

    • BJ says:

      10:03am | 01/06/11

      Michael Kirby you are are deranged dangerous fool. Cr@p headlines and misguided accusations like this article inspire more hatred and division in the world than modern christian religions.

    • Here we go again blame someone else! says:

      10:14am | 01/06/11

      We have South African friends who emigrated to Oz. They were very pleased to be out of SA because they had a young daughter. What is going on in SA is this, a man (young, old, married, single) contracts HIV the village/tribal witchdoctor/medicineman tells him to go and rape a young white virgin girl and that will “cure” them of HIV/AIDS. This dark ages attitude not only doesnt provide a “cure” for HIV/AIDS but encourages a terrible crime against ALL women and infects the poor innocent girl who was raped. So to make statements that ALL religions are helping to spread HIV/AIDS is at best, simplistic, and incorrect!! It seems that religion is an easy target, at times, for those with an axe to grind about religion!! Humans out of lust, stupidity and self gratification are doing a good enough job of spreading HIV/AIDS themselves, add in bunkum that is being spread by these witchdoctors and there are going to be major problems across the board. There is always more to a story then just one side, this is just part of a complex story I hope I have added to the discussion!

    • CBR says:

      10:15am | 01/06/11

      The facts:
      - In Africa (especially), HIV/AIDS is a disease that affects men, women, children, heterosexuals and homosexuals
      - In Africa, HIV/AIDS is principally spread by heterosexual intercourse, followed by homosexual intercourse and other sexual and non-sexual vectors (different to in the west), which include in utero, through birth and via breastfeeding
      - While encouraging abstinence/monogamy is all well and good, it doesn’t stop people from being raped, or afflicted couples passing it to their spouses and children. The “I told you so” opinions of the Christians above is appalling on this front, and ignores the fact that Africans are probably about as monogamous as Westerners (which is to say, not very), regardless of the respective devoutness to religion
      - Condoms (and other barrier prevention methods) severely decrease the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission, for all sexual forms of transmission. The Catholic church and other Christian (and I assume Islamic, although I’m not sure on that front) strongly discourage or prohibit the use of condoms, and actively work to limit their distribution in Africa. The Catholic church in particular actively lobbies against their acceptance by various African governments
      - Safe sex prevention education (along with the abundance of condoms) goes a long way to keep STI infection rates down in the west, but is relatively unavailable in Africa due to the aforementioned abstinence-only stances of religion (and the Catholic church in particular)

      Do the math.

    • Jake says:

      10:54am | 01/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      I’m still waiting to hear whether you can provide a peer-reviewed source for your claim that AIDS is caused by bacteria. Are you going to provide something or will you retract your claim (or simply continue to spout it as fact, even without any evidence)? You can make all the delusional arguments about the bible mentioning AIDS you want, but I want you, and everyone else, to know that science and medicine both categorically disagree with your assertions about the cause of AIDS.

      Yours is the kind of attitude the article is referring to. You would love nothing more than to show that AIDS is a direct result of what you perceive to be a perversion - a punishment handed down from god himself upon the sodomites - but that’s not what the facts show. And yet regardless, you’re still willing to argue publicly that scientific evidence supports your argument. You are at best, mistaken, at worst a bald faced liar.

      It doesn’t seem to bother you in the slightest that the misinformation that you’re helping to spread might contribute to the stigmatization and misery of other humans or the hindrance of research which could save millions. It doesn’t bother you because you’ve obviously decided that AIDS is a curse reserved for the evil homosexuals and they’ll get what they deserve? You’re doing gods work by spreading the word, right?

      People with attitudes like yours - attitudes that put the well-being of other humans beneath your personal need to preach that they’re evil - are significant contributors to the stigma that surrounds AIDS. This stigma causes people to hide the illness for fear of judgement by people who ignore science and reason in place of dogma and bigotry. When the article blames religion for the spread of AIDS, this is what it’s referring to. People like you who talk love and acceptance, but walk fear and hatred. You haven’t the first clue what it truly means to love your fellow human because you apparently can’t hold off judging others for long enough to see the harm that your attitude causes them.

      How does religion contribute to the spread of AIDS? By it’s willingness to spread misinformation that affects the public perception of the disease and causes people to hide or ignore the issue rather than address it directly. It causes policy makers, keen to appease religious voters, to not dedicate the time and resources to the issue that might result in a cure. Religion didn’t cause AIDS any more than bacteria did, but it is without doubt a significant systemic contributor to it’s propagation.

      So I’ll ask you again, Anne. Will you provide a source to support your claim that AIDS is caused by “Bacteria in the Male rectum that infiltrates the Immune system breaking down the production of good bacteria and eventually destroying it’s function and that it is passed on through intercourse”.

      If you cannot support that claim with real evidence, will you have the integrity to admit this and retract it?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      01:54pm | 01/06/11

      http://www.lightparty.com/Health/LackOfEvidence.html
      http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm
      http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hiv-aids/DS00005/DSECTION=causes

      Ok Jake I have given you 3 links in reference to Aids there are many more, some say the same others are different, most contradict each other as well as previous Scientific findings which at the time they believed were True and propergated,  now some only agree partially others reject it completely and so on but don’t loose hope Jake tomorrow they may believe something new or maybe next week and it will go on and on…

      So Who knows without doubt,  who has all the right answers,  Who Created us, Whose Truth never Changes ... what does He say ...

      Romans 1 :24 -27 Therefore God our Creator gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to Sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the Truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the created things rather than the Creator who is the Lord and is to be praised forever Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their Women exchanged Natural sexual relations for Unnatural ones.  In the same way the Men also abandoned Natural relations with Women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other Men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their wrong doing.

      Of course the word Aids is not mentioned with it being a Modern word like Dinosaurs, Rapture. Trinity,  D.N.A etc but as you can see with Aids the Scriptures refer to them all in a way that leaves no doubt as to what they are in reference to.

      It is not God who wants us to suffer Jake and it is not His will that we choose to do things that causes us or others to suffer it grieves Him greatly ... it is not His will that man does what causes Aids or that they spread it to others including woman and Children… Still He does not hate them even though they do evil,  nor do Born again Christians,  how can we when we deserve to die for the evil that we have done. 

      God does hate indeed what they do because it hurts them and others like Murder, steeling Lying or any evil act ....  that is why He warns them in the Scriptures and continues to warn them through His people,  He does not want anyone to perish. If He didn’t Love us He would not have sent His Son Jesus Christ knowing He would suffer for the wrong we did , which means if we believe in Jesus by acknowledging we are sinners and repenting from our heart and because we have been saved we will reflect Jesus and so seek to stop doing evil and do good with His empowing,  this also means we will not be punished for our past sins and we are under God’s grace until we have put the deeds of the evil flesh Nature to death and are perfected in Love…something as Christians we must all aim for and we do achieve this if we are in Christ Jesus and born anew of God’s seed.

      Take Care Jake - Kind regards Anne.

    • Suzanne says:

      03:03pm | 01/06/11

      Oh Anne - you poor misguided fool.
      http://www.lightparty.com/Health/LackOfEvidence.html - Where to start with this it’s just denialist crap. Hardly in keeping with their goal of “Health, Peace & Freedom for all”, is it?

      http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm - Lol…The “Dr.” interviewed here, Eleni Papadopulous doesn’t hold a doctorate and is, in fact, a medical technician.She has done no AIDS research and the group she belongs to, The Perth Group, is largely ignored by the scientific community because they’re denialist crackpots.
      From Wikipedia:
      “The Perth Group’s speculation is completely rejected by the scientific community as HIV has been adequately isolated and shown to be the cause of AIDS”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleni_Papadopulos-Eleopulos#cite_note-rvparenzee-0

      http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hiv-aids/DS00005/DSECTION=causes - This link actually talks about everything you’ve denied up to now so own goal for you.

      BTW - How does being homosexual hurt anyone, intolerant religious fools aside, of course?

      One more thing, why do you bleat on about god sacrificing Jesus for us…how much of a sacrifice is it for an omipotent being to create a person, watch him die, knowing he wasn’t really dead and then zap him back to life again? Unless of course he’s not omnipotent…
      I put it to you that your god is little more than a self-indulgent, ego-maniacal tyrant who has the power to save millions, if not billions of innocent people from untold suffering yet chooses not to intervene and then blames people for their own misfortune because of a mistake supposedly made by Eve. So much for being a forgiving god, eh?

    • Jake says:

      04:48pm | 01/06/11

      Oh wow Suzanne… Did you steal my thoughts or did I steal yours because I think we said exactly the same thing!

      See Anne, it’s not that hard to do a little bit of validation on your sources. Why don’t you give it a bash yourself next time?

      You’re quite right about the supposed “Sacrifice” of Jesus. It’s typical of a human mind attempting to characterize something omnipotent. The bible is full of logical inconsistencies like this. You see it all the time. God hates sin. Then why is there sin? God doesn’t want us to suffer. Then why do we suffer?

      There is a very simple logical conclusion which is often made but fobbed off as argumentative or overly simplistic, and yet it is a tremendously important conclusion.

      Premise 1: God is omnipotent and all powerful - that is, anything that God wishes to happen will happen.
      Premise 2: There is human suffering
      Premise 3: God loves his children and does not wish for any of them to suffer

      There are two logical conclusions within the finite domain defined by premise 1 and 2. Either:
      1. God wishes there to be human suffering; or
      2. God is unable to prevent suffering

      Conclusion 1 is in conflict with premise 3 and Conclusion 2 is in conflict with premise 1. Similar examples are repeated again and again. Either God wishes to allow evil to exist or he is unable to prevent it from existing.

      A simple logical analysis of the claims made in the bible leaves one with the inescapable conclusion that God is both Omnipotent and Impotent! While I find this kind of reasoning to be an excellent rebuttal of any non-agnostic description of the Christian God, the reality is that it never hold water with believers because of the tired old “works in mysterious ways” apology.

      This is of course a cop out as we are not analyzing his motives, only his actions as described in his own instruction manual. I read a wonderfully interesting book which delved deeply into logical dissection of events described in the bible but the name escapes me. I’ll have to clamber up the bookshelf tonight and dust it off again.

    • WilliamK says:

      10:59am | 01/06/11

      Mr Kirby, you may well be correct in claiming that religion is contributing to the spread of aids because religion is man made and therefore often unhelpful because it’s man centred. What I mean is that religion invariably manipulates the truth to suit men or certain groups of men. Men naturally find the Truth to be unpalatable; this blog being a fine example, hence the relentless desire to modify or deny the Truth.

      But can the Truth be known?

      Can we know things for certain?

      I believe that yes we can. For an brilliant summary see http://www.proofthatgodexists.org

    • Jake says:

      01:03pm | 01/06/11

      @WilliamK
      That website is absolutely riddled with oversimplification, omission, logical fallacies and assumptions. It provides as much proof of the existence of a god as it does proof of the existence of snarks.

      If this is what some people regard to be proof of something, then I can understand how some people are confused as to tell what information is based on fact and what is based on fantasy.

    • WilliamK says:

      03:59pm | 01/06/11

      @Jake says
      So what is your basis or how do you account for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, science, maths, etc, when you have only ever lived in a material and ever changing world?

    • Jake says:

      11:03am | 02/06/11

      @WilliamK
      What? What do you mean how do I account for them? What is there to account for? How do you account for the fact that bosons are heavier than quarks? How do you account for the fact that I like blue more than I like pink?

      The laws of logic aren’t unchanging. There has been healthy discussion of the laws of logic and their implications since the earliest days of philosophy and it continues today. If you mean why are logical laws fundamental in nature (i.e. True And True ALWAYS equals True), it’s because that’s the way we designed them! The same goes for maths - of which logic is a specialized sub-set.

      The laws of physics are “unchanging” (although our understanding of them is not) because they are simply a model of how our universe works. We didn’t create them, we simply describe what we see. The fact that they are consistent is simply because the entire universe is made of the same stuff and it all interacts in the same way. Why wouldn’t it be universal? It’s what the universe is made of! Would you consider the fact that a tree is full of wood to also be proof of a higher power?

      What does any of this have to do with the existence of a god? Yours is an irrelevant, poorly defined question and you think that the inability of someone to formulate a cogent answer to it somehow proves something? It doesn’t!

      If this is what you think, then you lack even the most basic understanding of logic. Even if I were to ignore every single flaw in the logical progression of that questionnaire, at-best it would suggest an implied order to the universe. That isn’t proof of a god, let alone *your* god. But the fact is it falls short of even this modest goal. I’ve seen better proofs for god posited by Atheists.

      An inability to answer any question - let alone one as malformed and vacuous as yours - is not proof of anything. Certainly not god.

    • WilliamK says:

      06:48pm | 02/06/11

      @Jake says
      Apologies for the delayed reply. I’ve been insanely busy.

      “If you mean why are logical laws fundamental in nature (i.e. True And True ALWAYS equals True), it’s because that’s the way we designed them!”

      So you’re implying that “we” design the laws of logic.

      So my next question is:

      If logic is subject to man could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and the same way before man existed?

    • WilliamK says:

      12:51pm | 03/06/11

      @Jake says
      “The laws of physics are “unchanging” because they are simply a model of how our universe works.”

      That’s circular reasoning…..... they exist because they exist.

      Similarly regarding the implication that we design logic…....taken to its logical conclusion, as blogged previously, becomes totally absurd.

      And that’s my point. You cannot account for abstract, universal and invariant laws of science apart from God. You have to borrow from the Christian world view to challenge the Truth.

      You wouldn’t accept circular reasoning when you debate Christians, yet your world view, as I have read on this blog, is viciously circular : )

    • Brad says:

      02:58pm | 03/06/11

      Circular how? The laws of physics are a testable measurable force, we know this through… testing and observation. We can independently verify these claims.

      An apply falls from a tree because it is acted upon by gravity. That will always happen when a suspended object is released from any height, it is a predictable and constant result.

      The laws of physics which we observe in this universe are as far as we have been able to tell through testing and experiments, always constant.

      I have one fallacy for you WilliamK that suits quite nicely for your argument… non sequitur.

      We most certainly did design the laws of logic, logic is a concept, there are laws within logic however (mathematical laws of logic) that are constant.

      There is also no law which governs what the laws of physics or logic may be in alternative universes - ala multiverse theorum. What gave birth to our universe, need not be governed by the laws within our universe.

    • WilliamK says:

      03:34pm | 03/06/11

      @ Brad says:
      “An apply falls from a tree because it is acted upon by gravity. That will always happen when a suspended object is released from any height, it is a predictable and constant result.”

      My question to you is: How do you account for the uniformity of science?

    • Jake says:

      04:31pm | 03/06/11

      @WilliamK
      It’s not circular reasoning, it’s prima facie. Kind of like saying “A rock is a rock because it’s a rock”. Circular reasoning would be like saying “The Bible it correct because it was written by God and we know God is prefect because it says so in the Bible”. See the difference?

      The laws which physics describes aren’t a set of rules which have been applied to a blank universe, they *are* the universe. The universe is simply a manifestation of a set of rules. the sub-atomic particles that make up everything we see aren’t separate things inside of the universe, they are the universe.

      The universe isn’t a thing which has had a set of restrictions placed upon it’s behaviour - like a mouse in a maze. Conceptually, I suppose it’s more like a flame - the transient result of the application of a set of rules.

      That different particles interact in particular ways (physics joke) is built into the very fabric of the universe. Nobody needed to created those rules. They may have existed forever, they may have been triggered by an event inside something larger than our universe, there may be a different explanation.

      The short answer is we don’t know with any real certainty. That doesn’t mean god did it. I’ll be damned if I can remember where I left my favourite coffee mug yesterday but I’m pretty sure god doesn’t have it.

    • Jake says:

      04:39pm | 03/06/11

      @WilliamK
      As for logic, you need to define your question more clearly. “The laws of Logic” is not a well defined term. Do you mean the paradigm and language which we call logic or do you mean the scenarios that logic models?

      Logic is simply a tool we created to understand cause and effect and frame it in such a way that we can make useful predictions and conclusions.

      Logic is a sub-set of mathematics. It is not always expressed mathematically as it is useful in a philosophical arena where minute mathematical detail makes it unwieldy, however at it’s heart, logic is maths. So, in the same sense that we (humans) invented statistics, set theory and calculus, we also invented logic - that is, we invented the language to describe and manipulate it.

      If your question is who made it such that 1 and 1 always equals 2, then answer is nobody. The conceptual framework of this scenario is enabled by our understanding of the language of mathematics. We have defined a term called 1 and another term called 2 and we have defined a relationship such that a 1 and another 1 can be combined to create 2.

      Interesting side-note, mathematicians are a funny lot. Mathematical proofs are incredibly rigorous things because maths allows us to state perfect certainties. By logical deduction, mathematical relationships can be shown to be fundamentally true - something not possible in the natural sciences. Anyway, a few years back Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead set out on the ambitious task of providing a mathematical proof of a well-known equation. It took them 378 pages to do it. The equation? 1 + 1 = 2 (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/extreme_math_1_1_2.php). But I digress…

      Maths and logic are simply languages to model real-world events. We invented them. I’m not sure how you manage to link any of this to proof for or against the existence of a god.

      “And that’s my point. You cannot account for abstract, universal and invariant laws of science apart from God. You have to borrow from the Christian world view to challenge the Truth.”

      Okay for starters, if what you were saying here was remotely true, then I could just as easily apply your conclusion to any of the thousands of gods to which various religions attribute the creation of the universe. Yours isn’t the only gig in town.

      That being said, you’ve made the most inexplicably preposterous leap of logic here in asserting that if I am not able to “account” for some nebulous concept which you describe as “abstract, universal and invariant laws of science”, that there can be only one conclusion: God exists.

      That is utter rubbish. In essence, all you’re doing is restating the premise that “something had to start it all and that something had to be a god”. That’s specious reasoning.

      What do you mean when you say how do I “account” for the uniformity of science? What is there to account for? Things happen, science describes them. Is there some reason we should expect that not to be the case in the absence of a god? What is that reason? Explain your question.

      Do you mean *why* are the laws what they are? Why should there be a reason? They just are. You are making an unfounded assumption that some intelligent agent had to create the universe with a purpose in mind. I, however, assume nothing but the fact that the universe exists - why would I assume knowledge that I can’t back up with any evidence? I certainly have no evidence to suggest a god had anything to do with it.

      Do you mean *how* the laws emerged? There are a few theories, none of which we are yet able to test. A popular one is the Multiverse hypothesis. Have a read if you’re interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_theory

      There’s not a lot of empirical research on the subject and I personally have nowhere near the level of understanding of cosmology necessarily to comment knowledgeably on it so I won’t. Again, there is no evidence which suggests a god had anything to do with it.

      “You wouldn’t accept circular reasoning when you debate Christians, yet your world view, as I have read on this blog, is viciously circular”

      Care to give me an example of what you’re referring to here or should I just ignore the remark? You’ve already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the term “circular reasoning” once…

    • Brad says:

      05:13pm | 03/06/11

      Uniformity? isnt that creation (sic) science…. mumbo jumbo?

      The universe we are in, is a result of its forces… I believe you are deceptively playing towards the “fine tuning” argument for which there are plenty of debunks available to you online… i dont need to parrot them here smile

    • WilliamK says:

      06:37pm | 03/06/11

      Brad says:
      “… I believe you are deceptively playing towards the “fine tuning argument”

      No I’m not going to badger you about fining tuning of the universe because you are not the “Judge”. The evidence is overwhelming and I’m not into convincing you with evidence but I do want to highlight that you are supressing the truth.

      I would like to know how you account for abstract, universal and invariant laws of science apart from God.

      You say “The universe we are in, is a result of its forces…”

      So my question to you is how do you know that your senses and reasoning about the universe are valid?

    • WilliamK says:

      08:19pm | 03/06/11

      @Jake says
      Thank you for your very detailed responses but you haven’t really answered my question directly.

      If logic is subject to man could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and the same way before man existed?

      In other words, this violates the law of non contradiction.

      You have to concede that that is possible now because as you said logic was invented by man…..ie
      “Logic is simply a tool we created to understand cause and effect and frame it in such a way that we can make useful predictions and conclusions.”

      And that is just absurd…...sorry I’m not trying to be rude.

      As an unbeliever you believe in a world that is only made of matter and is constantly changing - now how do you get a law of logic which forbids contradiction in a world view such as yours (assuming that you can now see your fallacious reasoning above)

    • Brad says:

      09:55pm | 03/06/11

      Ahh so you are a deluded fine tuner…

      *sigh* its an old dead argument, but anyway….

      First, let me ask… how much of the entire earth’s volume is even habitable by humans? 0.46%..... and thats just the earth…. what percentage of the whole universe is habitable? hint, its a number so small, it would take a paragraph to write it, and thats an upper estimate.

      Its like saying that a hard drive the size of the entire earth that can only store 1 bit (one eighth of a byte) of information is fine tuned for data storage… the argument just conceptually fails utterly.

      Now if we actually want to see how absurd this is… we can turn to…SCIENCE smile

      Many different scientists have done peer reviewed studies and virtual experiments mapping out the universe from the big bang if the laws of physics were purely random. Fred Adams has shown that of this random beginning, 25% of such random permutations would result in a universe quite similar to our own, capable of producing stars… which are all that is required to produce higher elements required for life.

      Work by Roni Harnik shows that even with the weak nuclear force, one of the four fundamental forces was removed, viable stars could be produced.


      Our universe is in no way an improbable coincidence fine tuned for life! Any universe capable of producing any kind of life, that life will evolve to suit the conditions in that universe…

      We are NOT fine tuned to live in this universe… we have evolved to suit this universes conditions, more accurately, this planet’s conditions. There may be various other life forms entirely separate from our own which have evolved to suit frozen planets or intensely hot ones. Life as we know it, is only the way it is because of the conditions on our planet. Not the other way around.

      This is also not taking into account a multiverse situation, of which, our universe is one of infinite possible combinations, ergo, the variables are bound to be set as they are in at least one universe….

    • WilliamK says:

      12:16pm | 04/06/11

      @ Brad says
      As suspected, you are unable to answer the following questions:
      1. How you account for abstract, universal and invariant laws of science, maths, etc, apart from God.

      2. How you know that your senses and reasoning about the universe are valid?

      As stated, I’m not going to attempt to convince about “fine tuning” because you are not the Judge, as though sufficient evidence will convince you, placing yourself in the position of God. But I would like to point out that you stand judged before God, who you deny. And you deny by suppressing the truth. Your world view is based on circular reasoning. If you answered my questions I would be able to show you how flawed your position is….but instead you choose to not answer. But I urge you, please re-examine your world view.

    • Brad says:

      09:28pm | 04/06/11

      “1. How you account for abstract, universal and invariant laws of science, maths, etc, apart from God.”

      How can you? Merely stating that goddidit is no proof at all, infact it is infantile and absurd without actual evidence to claim such. Accounting for these laws could be attributed to anything… show me evidence as to why it cannot be attributed to the flying speghetti monster instead of god. The problem is that you cannot… there is an utter stalemate here which is why i ignored it as its been done thousands of times before.. the only difference is instead of attributing them to a magic man, we can skip a step and say that these laws are on their own eternal and let Occam’s razor do the rest.

      “2. How you know that your senses and reasoning about the universe are valid?”

      How do you know anything? How do you know you werent just born today and everything from before you went to sleep implanted into your mind? How are you certain we are not just all dreaming? We can only hold confidence that this is infact a reality, there is no certainty about anything other than that I am something.. That being said, without a base line of acceptable certainty (and not absolute) we would go insane with philosphical crap like what I bet you have planned to copy and paste from a website.

      Think for yourself for once, dont let the interwebs do all of your thinking for you.

    • Jake says:

      03:01pm | 06/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “Thank you for your very detailed responses but you haven’t really answered my question directly.”

      That’s because, as I said, your question makes no sense. I can’t answer a question if you can’t define your terms.

      “If logic is subject to man could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and the same way before man existed?”

      Allow me to pose a similar question: If Hippos are grey then could a space shuttle fly with marshmallow wings?

      Your question is completely non-sequitur. Could the universe have both existed and not existed? I haven’t a clue. You’re the one asserting it, you tell me.

      “In other words, this violates the law of non contradiction.”

      You mean the principal of contradiction? That states that a logical statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. Certainly, depending on how you define your existent/non-existent scenario, it may breach a number of logical laws, but that’s your own scenario so I don’t really see how it applies to anything I’ve said.

      “You have to concede that that is possible now because as you said logic was invented by man…..ie
      ‘Logic is simply a tool we created to understand cause and effect and frame it in such a way that we can make useful predictions and conclusions.’”

      I have to concede what exactly? That the universe both existed and did not exist simultaneously? Why? The simple fact that humans devised a means to model certain natural scenarios doesn’t imply any kind of universal duality.You’re going to need to explain your logic a bit better than this because your conclusion makes no sense at all.

      “And that is just absurd…...”

      If you reach absurd conclusions, it’s not my fault. Explain your logic and maybe we can see where you’re getting confused.

      “sorry I’m not trying to be rude.”

      I really don’t care if you’re rude. I find your faux-intellectual nonsense far more offensive than anything else you’ve said.

      “As an unbeliever you believe in a world that is only made of matter and is constantly changing - now how do you get a law of logic which forbids contradiction in a world view such as yours (assuming that you can now see your fallacious reasoning above)”

      For starters, you don’t know what I believe so save yourself the trouble of trying to understand it - you won’t. We’re not discussing what I believe, we’re discussion what you claim to be factual.

      To answer your question, “how do [I] get a law of logic which forbids contradiction”. The same way I get a law of maths that says 1+1=2. The same way J. K. Rowling gets a world where broomsticks fly. It is not a property of the universe that makes this so, it is merely a function of the model we have created.

      Logical proof is about taking tiny steps from premise to conclusion. Taking giant leaps like “You believe that humans created logic therefor you must concede that the universe exists and doesn’t exist” is utterly meaningless. Here’s proof:

      I assert that humans created the language of logic. I do not concede that the universe must have therefor existed and not existed.

      Unless you want to explain your logic a little better, I think we can leave it at that.

    • WilliamK says:

      05:37pm | 06/06/11

      @Brad says:
      “...........we can skip a step and say that these laws are on their own eternal and let Occam’s razor do the rest”

      You wouldn’t accept that logic when debating a Christian…...skipping steps and making random assumptions.

      And that’s the basis of arriving at your foundation for your world view ... assumptions/speculation/internet/Wikkipedia etc. And that’s my point - you cannot rationally account for the foundation on which you base your intellectual framework.

      “....there is no certainty about anything ........”
      Are you certain about that?  : )

      “Think for yourself for once, don’t let the interwebs do all of your thinking for you.”
      Great advise ....why don’t you practice what you preach?

      Contary to what you state, we can know things for certain. For example, I know that truth exists. I also know that truth exists everywhere.

      It so happens that Jesus Christ states that he is the way, the truth and the life….

      It so happens that he also states that he is omnipresent….

      It so happens that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws reflect the very nature of God.

      Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God’s existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them.

      These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

      I urge you to critically re-examine your worldview.

    • WilliamK says:

      06:34pm | 06/06/11

      @Jake says:
      Sorry, forgive me for explaining myself so poorly. I agree with your sentiment that:
      “....I do not concede that the universe must have therefor existed and not existed.”
      In other words, it’s illogical because it’s a violation of the law of non contradiction.
      The point I was trying to make in giving such a ridiculous example was to show the foolishness of claiming that man created the laws of logic and to demonstrate that the laws of logic exist apart from man - even before man…..and these laws are universal, immaterial and unchanging. So the point you were making; that man created logic is quite incorrect.

      Also note that you use logic, amongst other methods, to debate me.

      I see that you have altered your position and now claim that man only “created the language of logic”.

      Please be so kind as to explain how you account for the laws of logic (not the language) because you have contradicted yourself in claiming that
      “it is merely a function of the model we have created”.

      So did man create the laws of logic or didn’t he????

      Because you now claim that:
      “It is not a property of the universe that makes this so…”
      I would like to know how you know that your senses and reasoning about the universe are valid?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:22pm | 06/06/11

      Thank you once again WilliamK for your Stand for the Lord and also sharing God’s wisdom.  I have read all your posts and was encouraged and uplifted and also have more knowledge in regards to universal laws etc I look forward to reading more of what you have to share.

      Yes sometimes like the Apostle Paul a strong word is needed but I also respected your patience and tolerance.

      Thank you for the Link http://www.proofthatgodexists.org  it has to be one of the best presented I have ever seen and so easy to excess, yes it does make you think but… WOW… it brings it all into focus. I have not read right through yet but will continue to do so over the next few days but what I have read has been great,  thank you again WilliamK for providing it and taking the time to do so.

      God bless you greatly - Christian Love Anne

    • Brad says:

      07:22pm | 06/06/11

      “You wouldn’t accept that logic when debating a Christian…...skipping steps and making random assumptions. “

      As you completely ignored this whole argument is a stalemate, you completely ignored my response and jumped onto this at the end… nice sidestep. Skip a step was referring to Occams razor and god… there is no need to invoke god if we consider the laws eternal, yet that is beside the point. you have not addressed the core of my response.

      You cannot account for it either, you label it with goddidit but that is just a god of the gaps response. Lack of knowledge is not proof of god. You cannot simply state that because science cannot account for it, god must be the answer.. thats dumb…very dumb. Its a non-answer and completely irrational without actual evidence to back this up which you cannot possibly provide. Even if you could prove that these laws had some form of supernatural beginning, you would then have to prove it was your god and not a pink unicorn that farts rainbows.

      “Great advise ....why don’t you practice what you preach?”

      Wow, that’s interesting… I am answering in my own words, my own thoughts, you are merely copying and pasting off the web… 

      I googled “How you account for abstract, universal and invariant laws of” as i thought i had heard that used before… hundreds of hits with verbatim that wording and grammar… very independent of you.

      At least my answers are my own, from my own thought processes to here. I dont need to copy and paste other peoples opinions and present them as my own.

      “It so happens that Jesus Christ states that he is the way, the truth and the life….
      It so happens that he also states that he is omnipresent….
      ” Actually, god is omnipresent, Did jesus actually claim that he was omnipresent? In his own words?

      “It so happens that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws reflect the very nature of God.”

      Bullshit… They are what they are, they reflect nothing about their origins. A rock is a rock, by being a rock, is not proof of god.

      “Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. “

      What a deluded sentence… do you actually grasp how ridiculous it is?

      Lets try it a different way, you william, deny the existence of Thor, this is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception.

      How conceited is that? What pure and utter ignorance and arrogance thought that one up?

      “You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. “

      Actually you can. I drop a glass and it shatters, now i know what happens to glass when it shatters… I learned in my kitchen through experimentation.

      “Arguing against God’s existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. “

      Arguing against the existing of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be on par with arguing the existance of air, breathing it all the while.

      Well again, arrogance and ignorance. Firstly, terrible analogy, air is a tangible testable entity. Secondly, these sentences are pointless, as you can see, you can put anything dubious in the spot for god and it does not make the sentence any more or less correct.

      “You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. “

      Absolute morality? lol, nice red herring.

      Accounting for them bears no restriction upon their use, if you disagree, solve this one:

      Account for the origin of god or you cannot believe in him… smile (and no, saying god is eternal is not an answer but an excuse for a lack of one which wont be accepted as this will then add credence to the statement that the laws on their own can be eternal, thus nullifying this whole thing).

      “These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.”

      total non-sequitor. What evidence have you supplied to support your presupposition that god actually exists to create these laws. You are completely ignoring this step. Secondly, the laws of logic when applied to the evidence for god prove completely counter intuitive to your claim and thus is internally contradictory.

      The ONLY source of “evidence” (sic) that christianity has for god is bronze age myths recorded in the bible. There is equally as much evidence for other gods that go back even further, such as the indian gods.

      Talking in riddles to try and trick people into believing that a gap in human knowledge is proof of god is childish and deceptive. Provide me actual proof of god is the creator of the laws of logic and not that they are eternal on their own, or that another god or psudo god could be the root cause… such as Thor, then you might be able to interest me into re-examine my world view. Until then, im more than happy reject your claims for what they are… baseless.

    • Jake says:

      01:21pm | 07/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “The point I was trying to make in giving such a ridiculous example was to show the foolishness of claiming that man created the laws of logic and to demonstrate that the laws of logic exist apart from man - even before man…..and these laws are universal, immaterial and unchanging. So the point you were making; that man created logic is quite incorrect.”

      That’s what you were trying to demonstrate? I didn’t get that at all but okay, lets move on.

      To quote wikipedia’s article on logic, it “is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic). It is not a property of the universe, like the laws described by physics.

      It seems to me you are confusing one set of “laws” which are inherent to the make-up of the universe and are described by physics, and another set of laws devised by humans to formalize the way we draw conclusions and apply reasoning (logic).

      If logic is part of the fabric of the universe, then show me, without using language to create a logical predicate, a natural example of “True”. Is a rock “True” or “False”?

      You cannot apply logical principals to the universe in the same way you can apply physics because one is an explicit model of the universe (physics) whereas the other is a generic framework to formalize reasoning.

      Logic can be applied to physical reality only when we know all of the relevant properties of the subject we are describing and they are captured in our predicate.

      Lets take a simple example. The Gluon is a type of Boson which is one of the elementary particles of quantum physics. A Gluon, like any physical object, possesses no inherent logical value. It is neither logically true, nor false, it simply exists. It possesses some measurable properties such as energy and spin, however the statement “Gluon AND Quark” is logically meaningless because natural things are not logical operands.

      The only way we can apply logic to our gluon and use this to create meaningful predictions is to create a logical predicate to describe it based on what we know, and then analyse that predicate. For example:

      1. Gluons are Bosons
      2. Bosons are elementary particles
      3. Elementary particles are small
      Therefore gluons are small.

      However, just because we can create a logical predicate and resolve it to a solution, doesn’t necessarily make the statement true *outside* of our model, i.e. in reality. Take the following example:

      1. Gluons are Bosons
      2. Bosons are made of cheese
      Therefore gluons are made of cheese.

      Our logic in the above example is perfectly sound, however the result is not congruent with reality because, according to the current standard model, Bosons aren’t made of cheese. So just because we are logically correct, doesn’t mean our result mirrors reality.

      Here’s another example:

      1. My shoes are made of rubber
      2. Rubber is bouncy
      Therefore my shoes are bouncy

      Seems simple enough and both of the statements are true, however my shoes aren’t actually bouncy. The issue here is that although none of the statements in our model are explicitly incorrect, one of them is an incomplete description of the subject it is attempting to describe. Not *all* rubber is bouncy.

      Can you see the difference between the logic describing something and the thing itself, now? Hopefully what you’ll take from these examples is the fact that logic and reality aren’t one and the same. The degree to which logic mirrors reality is directly proportional to how accurately we can describe the subjects we are analysing.

      This is much the same as physics, in that physics is only a useful model insofar as it correctly describes reality. However physics is specifically designed to describe specific things we see in real life, however logic is designed to model any abstract scenario we wish to describe, real or otherwise.

      1. All blingles are doogles
      2. All doogles are glagnic
      Therefor all blingles are glagnic

      The above example is logically correct, however blingles and doogles don’t describe anything real and glagnic is a made-up property. There’s no way that we can state how accurate this logical model to reality because it doesn’t model reality. So how could logic be a fundamental property of the universe when it works perfectly, independent of physical reality?

      <continued>

    • Jake says:

      01:22pm | 07/06/11

      @WilliamK

      <... continued from previous post - read the other one first>

      Logic is a generic system we use to model a situation and draw conclusions from it. But regardless of how sound our logic is, the real-life usefulness of our analysis is contingent on how accurately we have described the subject we are modeling.

      That being the case, I hope you can see why attempting to create a logical proof of something as poorly understood as an omnipotent deity using a half-dozen logical statements is a futile exercise.

      There is one massive fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the web page you posted which kind of makes any other dissection unnecessary. In order to posit a logical proof of God, you first have to have a complete description of what God is - which we could only have if we accept your bible to be accurate. The page’s author makes this clear when, on the page before the big reveal, he states:

      “The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore…”

      This one statement renders the rest of the questionnaire completely pointless. In order for this “proof” of god to work, we have to assume the existence of the “God of Christianity” before we start. Weren’t you the one criticizing circular reasoning earlier?

      On top of all that, the author makes a number of stark logical errors on the way to his conclusion. For example:
      - Composition (there are absolute truths therefore all truths are absolute - this is not necessarily true)
      - Irrelevant conclusion (laws of logic etc. are immaterial, unchanging and universal, therefore god exists - why)
      - False dilemma (laws of logic are either all universal or not universal - some may be universal, some not).

      There are a myriad of others but I don’t think they need addressing separately. If you were interested in identifying them I’m sure you could.

      So to sum it up…

      Firstly, logic is most certainly a human invention. It is an abstract conceptual framework designed to formalize the way we draw conclusions. It’s a thought-process and is a much a property of the universe as “happiness”. It can be used with varying degrees of usefulness to model real scenarios, but is not equivalent to the scenarios it describes.

      Secondly, the proof of god that you linked is flawed for a number of reasons, primarily that it is predicated on the assumption that god exists.

      I hope you understand my reasoning now. I don’t think I can simplify the explanation any further.

    • WilliamK says:

      05:49pm | 08/06/11

      @Anne Stocks says
      I’m so pleased to hear that you’re encouraged by that website. It’s so awesome how faithfully our Lord has provided all that we need. We do not need to deal with smoke and mirrors but we can know things for certain. His word is fully trustworthy and it is sufficient for all matters of faith and conduct. Never be duped by religion (and the world) that this is not the case because the very first sin we read about in the Bible is ..... “Eve do not trust the word of God but eat from the tree…..”.

      Thank you for your encouragement and my our Lord bless you too Anne.

    • WilliamK says:

      05:57pm | 08/06/11

      @Brad says
      Having read your response I would like to ask you:
      Do you concede that the Christian God may exist and that He can reveal things to us Christians for certain?

      If you do not agree, I would like to know how you know that He does not exist and why he cannot reveal things to us for certain.

    • WilliamK says:

      06:11pm | 08/06/11

      @Jake says
      ..... the proof of god that you linked is flawed for a number of reasons, primarily that it is predicated on the assumption that god exists.

      My question to you:
      Is it possible that the Christian God exist’s and that he can reveal things for certain to his followers?

      If you answer negatively I would like to know how you know for certain that he does not exist and that he cannot reveal things to us for certain.

    • Brad says:

      08:41pm | 08/06/11

      Not sure why i am bothering to reply to someone who completely ignored the effort we went to to reply…

      but…

      “Do you concede that the Christian God may exist”

      I concede that pink unicorns that fire rainbow laser beams out of their butts could exist, yet it does not make them any more likely that i concede such. Without omnipresence and omnipotence it is impossible to know something does not exist.

      “and that He can reveal things to us Christians for certain?”

      Any more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster reveals things to me for certain? No. People can be self-deluded thinking others or even gods are talking to them, infact it is quite common even amoung sane people. Many Children have make believe friends etc. I do not think there is any rational basis at all for believing the voices in your head are that of a deity.

      “If you do not agree, I would like to know how you know that He does not exist”

      Answered

      ” and why he cannot reveal things to us for certain.”

      First gods existence would need to be proven before you could claim that anything had infact been revealed otherwise it could just be your imagination. Good luck with that.

    • WilliamK says:

      11:11am | 09/06/11

      @Brad says:
      I’m pleased to read that you concede that God may well indeed exist, but I accept that you do not believe that He exists?

      “Without omnipresence and omnipotence it is impossible to know something does not exist.”

      I agree.

      Any more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster reveals things to me for certain? No. People can be self-deluded thinking others or even gods are talking to them, infact it is quite common even amoung sane people. Many Children have make believe friends etc. I do not think there is any rational basis at all for believing the voices in your head are that of a deity.

      I agree that mysticism may well be delusional, and often is; but you have not answered the question.

      “First gods existence would need to be proven before you could claim that anything had infact been revealed otherwise it could just be your imagination. Good luck with that.”

      But you have conceded that the Christian God may exist. You have acknowledged that you do not know things for certain…...because you’re not omnipotent, etc….I acknowledge that you don’t believe it…..but can God reveal things to his followers such that they can know things for certain, if there’s the possibilty that he exists? I know you don’t believe it but is it possible?

    • Jake says:

      04:10pm | 09/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “My question to you:
      Is it possible that the Christian God exist’s and that he can reveal things for certain to his followers?”

      Yes it is.

      My question to you:
      Is it possible that the pagan God Pan exists and that he can reveal things for certain to his followers?

      That a God *may* exist does not lend credence to any suggestion that god *does* exist. Additionally, it is always an invalid premise for a logical proof to be contingent on a pre-acceptance of the solution of that proof. If you take out the fluff in the middle, the proof states that “god exists because god must exist in order to prove he exists”.

      So unless you can prove that god exists in some way that doesn’t require stipulating in advance that god exists, then you don’t have a valid proof. You just have circular logic.

      Did you not read my previous comments or just not understand them?

    • Jake says:

      04:34pm | 09/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “But you have conceded that the Christian God may exist. You have acknowledged that you do not know things for certain.”

      Do you concede for certain that Vishnu, supreme god of the Hindu faith may exist? If not, can you provide conclusive proof that he does not?

      Additionally, please answer the same questions with regards to the following deities:

      - Ganesh, remover of obstacles
      - Odin, King of Asgard
      - Pan, god of nature
      - Tiddalik the Frog
      - Gaia, goddess of the earth
      - Ninhursag, Sumerian mother goddess
      - Toci, Aztec mother of the gods

      If you cannot disprove the existence of any of the above, please explain for those either:

      1. How you reconcile your belief in these gods with that of the christian god since all of these gods are considered to be involved in the creation of part or all of the universe; OR

      2. Why you choose *not* to believe in them without proof that they do not exist.

      Similarly, please explain how the following statement:

      “The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore…”

      ... is better supported by evidence than this statement:

      “The Supreme God of Hinduism is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore…”

      If you can’t tell, I’m interested in why *your* god should be given special consideration of every other god that people believe in with the same certainty as you do.

    • Brad says:

      09:11pm | 09/06/11

      “I’m pleased to read that you concede that God may well indeed exist, but I accept that you do not believe that He exists?”

      Now you are twisting my words. I do not believe god “may well” exist. I said that I concede it is a possibility. “May well” is putting a spin on my meaning here. Im saying that I dont believe god is any more likely than the easter bunny, but I concede that I cannot know that both dont exist.

      “I agree that mysticism may well be delusional, and often is; but you have not answered the question.”

      Well, you chose not to really understand the essence of my answer.

      If the easter bunny were to “reveal” something to me, how could I even know if it was my own brain creating this revelation or infact the word of a seemingly imaginary being?

      Occams razor demands the simplest explination. This would be different however, if my friend had revealed something to me, now I have a source which is somewhat verfyable to lend some credence to the revelation actually existing external to my mind before being introduced to my mind. Else it is not a revelation but an internal thought or idea.

      If you cannot know for certain that god actually exists, how can you possibly know for certain if the revelation existed external to your mind to qualify as a revelation in the first place? You are completely ignoring a chicken egg problem here with god.

      You must first establish that this being exists to know that anything has in fact been revealed by an external entity. Otherwise Occam’s razor dictates that it could not have been a revelation but an internal creation from your own brain.

      “but can God reveal things to his followers such that they can know things for certain, if there’s the possibilty that he exists? ”

      Again, the external source must be proven as the actual source else you are going to lapse into circular or non-sequitor logical fallacies. ie: god has revealed to me he exists, the revelation must be true if it came from god, therefore god exists. Before you quote mine, that was an example of a logical fallacy.

    • WilliamK says:

      02:50pm | 11/06/11

      @Jake
      You have raised a number of excellent issues I would love to address but I’m unable to proceed until you acknowledge my position on certain matters:

      You’ve conceded the possibility of a Christian God. And I understand that as an unbeliever you do not believe in Him.

      You have not answered the question as to whether God is able to reveal things for certain to his followers. Again I acknowledge that you do not believe this, but do you concede that it is possible?

      If not why not?

    • WilliamK says:

      03:18pm | 11/06/11

      @Brad
      “You must first establish that this being exists to know that anything has in fact been revealed by an external entity….”

      But you have conceded the possibility of the Christian God, which I understand as an unbeliever you do not believe.

      Since you have conceded this possibility, is it also possible that God reveal things for certain to his followers? I’m not asking you if you believe it…..just is it possible?

      “Again, the external source must be proven as the actual source else you are going to lapse into circular or non-sequitor logical fallacies. ie: god has revealed to me he exists, the revelation must be true if it came from god, therefore god exists. Before you quote mine, that was an example of a logical fallacy.”

      You have conceded the possibility. No need to pre-empt imagined future logical fallacies which you’re projecting onto me…...

      So… is it possible that Christians can know revealed truths from a possible Christian God (conceded) for certain?

    • Jake says:

      06:58pm | 13/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “You have not answered the question as to whether God is able to reveal things for certain to his followers. Again I acknowledge that you do not believe this, but do you concede that it is possible?”

      Actually I did acknowledge this in my previous post. To quote the exchange, you asked:

      “My question to you:
      Is it possible that the Christian God exist’s and that he can reveal things for certain to his followers?”

      To which I responded:

      “Yes it is.”

      I’m not sure if you didn’t understand me because I thought that response was pretty clear. Regardless, I’m going to nip this nonsense in the bud right now. If you have a logical proof to make, then you don’t need me to agree to every individual point before you state the next one. Describe your reasoning in full and I will respond to it. If you cannot do that then I put it to you that your logic doesn’t stand up.

      I’ve already dissected the “logic” on the web page you linked and explained the flaws. I have explained in detail the reason that logic is not a property of the universe but a construct of the mind. I have asked you several questions about your reasoning. You’ve responded to pretty much none of it, insisting instead that I listen to your assertions first, so hurry up and make them.

      If you have a point to make, I suggest you make it quickly because I don’t really have any interest in watching you spin your wheels trying to disguise apologetics as logical proof when you clearly don’t have much of an understanding of logic.

      Once again: Get to the point and stop asking irrelevant questions.

    • WilliamK says:

      11:49am | 15/06/11

      @Jake
      My mistake….you have conceded both, that it’s possible that the Christian God exist’s and that he can reveal things for certain to his followers?”

      My final question to you is…. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain to be true?

    • Jake says:

      12:05pm | 15/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “How is it possible for you to know anything for certain to be true?”

      Direct observation.

    • WilliamK says:

      01:50pm | 15/06/11

      @Jake
      “Direct observation.”

      And that’s my point. How do you know that your direct observations are valid?

    • Jake says:

      03:14pm | 15/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “And that’s my point. How do you know that your direct observations are valid?”

      Should I *not* rely on direct observation? Do you have a better alternative?

      What’s your point exactly? You claimed to be able to logically prove the existence of God. Your “point” above has nothing to do with this.

      I’m getting tired of your hopeless “points”. I’ve spent good time explaining to you the basic premises of Logic and addressing your comments directly and you have done nothing but evade my comments with vague questions.

      I’ll say it one more time. If you have a logical proof to provide that God exists, then hurry up and provide it. One post - end to end. No more stupid questions or irrelevant conclusions.

      Otherwise I think it’s safe to assume that your “proof” is as water-tight as the webpage you linked to in the first place.

    • WilliamK says:

      05:06pm | 15/06/11

      @Jake
      Should I *not* rely on direct observation? Do you have a better alternative?

      As I claimed right at the start of this blog - your world view is based on circular reasoning which you fail to comprehend because you are supressing the truth.

      You again appeal to senses and reasoning, but how do you know that your senses and reasoning are valid?  Your claim of “direct observation” is viciously circular….. saying: “I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid.” 

      You have exactly zero basis for attacking the Christian claim. Your Wikkipedia based world view is intellectually flawed and weak. (Wasn’t it only some months back that Wikkipedia and Science, swore that Pluto was a Planet…..??)

      As a Christian I can appeal to revelation from God in order to trust my senses and reasoning.  I have a basis for trusting my senses and reasoning to give me truth, while you as an unbeliever have none.

      Example - looking at train tracks….if you look down the tracks, your senses deceive you into thinking that the tracks are touching in the far distance.  The only reason that I can say that my senses and reasoning deceived me though, is by going down the tracks, and seeing that they do not in fact touch.

      I can trust my senses and reasoning to correct my earlier view.  If I can’t ever trust my senses and reasoning, I would never know that I was ever deceived.

      And you Jake are deceived.

      Ask that the truth be revealed to you because it is a gift from God…... a gift not given to everyone, only to those who genuinely ask.

      I appeal to you again - don’t be like a thief looking for a policeman, as evidenced on this blog.

    • Jake says:

      06:59pm | 15/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “You have exactly zero basis for attacking the Christian claim.”

      Oh here we go…

      At no point have I claimed that I could disprove God. *YOU* claimed to have a logical proof that God exists. Were that the case, then my “world view” would not be a factor. I am not attacking anything except *your* claim, and you have thus far been unable to defend it.

      As I stated several times previously, if your proof requires that I accept in advance that god exists, then it is not a proof at all.

      You seem to think I shouldn’t trust my senses and observation to establish reality, and yet the alternative you posit is that I trust… What exactly? A god? You can’t even prove that it exists so why would I trust it over my senses?

      “You again appeal to senses and reasoning, but how do you know that your senses and reasoning are valid?”

      At-least we understand how our senses work. We understand the physical process behind the eye and we can predict it’s behavior to such an extent that we can have a fair degree of confidence in it’s operation. What exactly do you know about god that you can prove without blindly assuming that it exists? Nothing apparently - not that you’ve been able to show anyway. Yet you feel that is a more reliable source of information than your eyes, ears and brain?

      The reason you are able to post this drivel is due to the eyes, ears and reasoning of scientists infinitely more intelligent than you. Do you think they went to the bible to work out how to build the microprocessor inside your PC?

      And so we find ourselves back at the same place as always:

      - Christian claims proof of God.
      - Christian asked to explain proof.
      - Christian fails and proceeds to hide behind Biblical apologetics - “YOU CAN’T KNOW FOR SURE GOD DOESN’T EXIST!”

      I didn’t come here claiming proof that God doesn’t exist so expecting me to prove something to you is an utter cop-out. You claimed that you could use logic to prove the existence of God, and you failed. You claimed to know what logic was a property of the universe and you were wrong. You have the intellect of a child.

      As for my “Wikkipedia [sic] based world”... I post links to Wikipedia because the articles are aimed at a non-academic audience (of which you are clearly a member) and generally cite proper references for the folks who feel the urge to delve deeper. I’m willing to bet you didn’t even click any of the links since you already know all the answers so I don’t think you’re in much of a position to criticize my references are you? Would you prefer I post links to Nature for you to ignore?

      Your proof is a joke and you have clearly been an utter waste of both my time and Brad’s. We have both explained repeatedly to you why your “proof” is invalid, but you’ve gone on pushing the wagon anyway. How acutely foolish you must be to think that you can use a tool like logic - of which you have little more than a 3rd grader’s understanding - to prove the existence of something which you couldn’t comprehend if it did exist.

      One thing I will agree with you on is that you probably shouldn’t trust your own reasoning because you don’t seem to know how to use it. Crawl back in your hole. Your proof is idiotic as are you.

    • WilliamK says:

      01:03pm | 16/06/11

      @Jake
      “You have the intellect of a child”
      “Crawl back in your hole. Your proof is idiotic as are you.”

      Funny how people who know they are losing an argument resort to name calling to divert attention from the fact that they do not have a comeback.

      Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception justified by your logically fallacious circular reasoning.

      You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know.

      You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, maths, science, etc, in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them.

      And these laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

      There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. Let me illustrate. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God’s existence. You sought the internet extensively to come up with an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?’ You tried Wikipedia, etc, etc…

      Did you even consider that the proof was valid?

      Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking.

      Why don’t you examine the real reason why you are running from God.

      Have a read of what God declares in Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21:

      The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    • Jake says:

      11:26pm | 16/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “Funny how people who know they are losing an argument resort to name calling to divert attention from the fact that they do not have a comeback.”

      Funny how when you’re unable to back make good on your claim you resort to the same tired bible thumping as every other wide-eyed believer.

      You have nothing to back you up but what you believe. No proof. No evidence. No theory. Just faith. Some people are happy enough with that, but you apparently weren’t so you thought you’d try to use the tools rational people use - like logic - to prove your irrational beliefs. Unsurprisingly, you failed, and once your failure was evident, you just fell back to the usual position of “You’d better believe in my merciful God or you’ll feel his merciful wrath”. Yeah the wrath of god sure keeps me up at night.

      “Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God’s existence. You sought the internet extensively to come up with an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?’ You tried Wikipedia, etc, etc…”

      WHAT?! Go back and read my replies to your post. I gave you a total of 3 links, 2 of which were anecdotal and unrelated to logic. The other one I posted *after* explaining in detail where you were going wrong, and you didn’t even have the wherewithal to look at that *one* link. I didn’t need to trawl the internet to show you why your assertions about “universal, unchanging laws of logic” were claptrap, I just gave you one link so you wouldn’t have to take my word for it. I must say it’s not often I get criticized for providing too many sources - especially when I only post one!

      What hope do you have that you’ll ever understand the universe when you don’t even take time to read any information which disagrees with what you believe? Are you scared that you might find out that your assumptions are baseless and foolish? You should because that’s exactly what they are.

      “There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof”

      No, it has to do with a *lack* of proof. The same reason I don’t believe in the thousands of other gods that various religions tell me I should be afraid of. Which one was yours again? Vishnu? Zarathustra? Dionysus? There’s so many gods out to get me for not believing in them I find it hard to keep track sometimes.

      “Did you even consider that the proof was valid?”

      Why do you think I followed your link? Why do you think I gave you a detailed explanation of the flaws? Why do you think I took an interest and bothered to respond?

      I’m not afraid to read and comprehend your side of the argument, so I was happy to discuss it openly. Why do you think I answered your questions and gave you a chance to explain your logic? Why do you think I spent hours of my time explaining in primary-school terms what logic is for you? Why do you think it gets on my nerves when people like you have the audacity to criticize *my* academic honesty when you don’t even have the decency to read the and respond to the information I provide to you?

      “Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking.”

      No. Believing in a god for which there is no material evidence and who is described only in a book ostensibly written by bronze age men and translated into English is a blind leap of faith and wishful thinking. If my senses and reasoning were wrong 99% of the time, they would still be 1% more reliable than blind faith!

      How do we know our reasoning can be trusted? Because it works. All the technology around you is proof of that (or do you not believe in your computer since you can only perceive it with your senses)? If our senses and reasoning couldn’t be trusted, then we could never be capable of understanding anything around us and we’d all still be sitting in caves shoving berries up our noses praying to the Sun. *That’s* why I trust my senses. But you seem to think the smart money is on trusting the voices in your head because it says so in a book written when they thought stars were painted on a giant crystal dome.

      You pretend to have academic standards. You pretend to be better than those who rely on faith alone because the mighty, universal, unchanging force of LOGIC (tm) is on your side! But as you have shown here, you’re just another naive believer who accepts an old story book as your fundamental source of truth because it’s easier than doing the work to actually understand what’s going on around you. Meanwhile you get fat off the benefits provided to you by folks who, thankfully, took the time to learn rather than just spouting assertions based on nothing but faith.

      Losing an argument? Please. Nobody wins in an argument like this. The small solace I can take from it is that you were reduced to hiding behind bible verses where you belong, just like Anne was.

    • Brad says:

      01:23am | 17/06/11

      Sorry I got bored waiting for this reply and stopped checking…

      No, its obviously not possible if you cannot account for the problem you are blatantly ignoring with special pleading “No need to pre-empt imagined future logical fallacies which you’re projecting onto me…...”

      Conceding that its possible that something exists does not leap forth to evidence of its existence, no matter how fancy your footwork.

      As clearly established in my former posts, to prove its anything other than your imagination you must prove the source as external, ie: establish that god indeed does exist BEFORE it can flow that you are receiving any information from it. Else you are violating Occam’s razor with pure and utter speculation and special pleading.

      Your entire argument if we considered it correct, which it is laughably not, has also proven pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and Zeus. Congrats on proving everything that’s possible to possibly exist, err wait, that didn’t really achieve anything other than mental masturbation.

      If your argument can be applied to a mythical being, a flying spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn you have to question the validity of its logic. These things are all possible, but absurd, like the concept of your god.

      You have produced nothing but non-sequitur and special pleading arguments while avoid a logical fallacy only because I pre-empted it.

      Admitting something could possibly exist gets you NO GROUND at all, this can be said of ANYTHING you can imagine.  So it is utterly pointless to add this to the debate, it in itself is NOT EVIDENCE nor does it prove anything other than the admission of non-deity like powers possessed by humans.

      To reiterate, unless you can show me a logical argument (what you have produced thus far is full of logical fallacies) or evidence to prove that a god even exists to supply you with information in the first place, how can any such information “supplied” be considered ANYTHING BUT YOUR IMAGINATION? 

      One demo to show you why your current arguments have failed:

      I have a friend called Brian, my friends and family think he is imaginary but they cannot show evidence that he doesn’t exist.  I know that Brian exists, how do I know you may ask? Because he told me so. I know it was him telling me, Brian is a deity with special powers, he has the power to reveal something to me for certain. This power is proof that what he has revealed must be true!?
      ^^ that in a nutshell is your argument. Pathetic isn’t it?

    • WilliamK says:

      05:04pm | 17/06/11

      @Brad
      “Sorry I got bored waiting for this reply and stopped checking…”

      My apologies ..... long w/end in our state last w/end.

      “Conceding that its possible that something exists does not leap forth to evidence of its existence, no matter how fancy your footwork.”

      Agreed. Wasn’t trying to prove existence….. again you’re jumping to conclusions.

      “As clearly established in my former posts, to prove its anything other than your imagination you must prove the source as external, ie: establish that god indeed does exist BEFORE it can flow that you are receiving any information from it. Else you are violating Occam’s razor with pure and utter speculation and special pleading.”

      If you were intellectualy honest you would concede that it’s possible God exists and it’s possible that he can reveal some things to Christians for certain; due to the impossibility of the contrary.

      “Your entire argument if we considered it correct, which it is laughably not, has also proven pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and Zeus. Congrats on proving everything that’s possible to possibly exist, err wait, that didn’t really achieve anything other than mental masturbation.”

      Are you certain of that Brad?

      If your argument can be applied to a mythical being, a flying spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn you have to question the validity of its logic. These things are all possible, but absurd, like the concept of your god.

      Only Christianity has the pre-condition of intelligibility and is inherently non contradictory. Unlike your faith…...???

      Admitting something could possibly exist gets you NO GROUND at all, this can be said of ANYTHING you can imagine.  So it is utterly pointless to add this to the debate, it in itself is NOT EVIDENCE nor does it prove anything other than the admission of non-deity like powers possessed by humans.

      It is possible that God exists and it’s possible that he can reveal some things to his followers such that they know these things for certain. (Note: this is not a proof).

      “To reiterate, unless you can show me a logical argument (what you have produced thus far is full of logical fallacies)”

      Show me…......?

      “One demo to show you why your current arguments have failed:
      I have a friend called Brian, my friends and family think he is imaginary but they cannot show evidence that he doesn’t exist.  I know that Brian exists, how do I know you may ask? Because he told me so. I know it was him telling me, Brian is a deity with special powers, he has the power to reveal something to me for certain. This power is proof that what he has revealed must be true!?
      ^^ that in a nutshell is your argument. Pathetic isn’t it?

      I know that Brian is imaginery because his philosophy lacks the pre-condition of intelligibility and there no multiple eye witness accounts/proof associated with him being a deity.

      So Brad if you’re so sure of everything…... how it is possible for YOU to know anything for certain to be true?

    • Brad says:

      11:31pm | 17/06/11

      “If you were intellectualy honest you would concede that it’s possible God exists and it’s possible that he can reveal some things to Christians for certain; due to the impossibility of the contrary.”
      Intellectually honest? Please…. You are jumping to conclusions based upon unverified presuppositions that must first be satisfied before those presuppositions can lend credence to your conclusion, which is intellectually dishonest.

      ““Your entire argument if we considered it correct, which it is laughably not, has also proven pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and Zeus. Congrats on proving everything that’s possible to possibly exist, err wait, that didn’t really achieve anything other than mental masturbation.”
      Are you certain of that Brad?”
      Point? What I stated is based upon your argument, can you disprove it?
      ““If your argument can be applied to a mythical being, a flying spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn you have to question the validity of its logic. These things are all possible, but absurd, like the concept of your god.”
      Only Christianity has the pre-condition of intelligibility and is inherently non contradictory. Unlike your faith…...???”
      What? Christianity has no justifications to claim any preconditions without proof, thus far none has been presented, only speculation. Also, what faith? Faith implies believing something without evidence, what positive belief do I hold with lack of evidence?
      ““Admitting something could possibly exist gets you NO GROUND at all, this can be said of ANYTHING you can imagine.  So it is utterly pointless to add this to the debate, it in itself is NOT EVIDENCE nor does it prove anything other than the admission of non-deity like powers possessed by humans.”
      It is possible that God exists and it’s possible that he can reveal some things to his followers such that they know these things for certain. (Note: this is not a proof).”
      How would they know it was not their imaginations? You are avoiding the pre-requisite AGAIN.
      ““To reiterate, unless you can show me a logical argument (what you have produced thus far is full of logical fallacies)”
      Show me…......?”

      Keep reading… that’s what the brackets are there for…
      “or evidence to prove that a god even exists to supply you with information in the first place, how can any such information “supplied” be considered ANYTHING BUT YOUR IMAGINATION? “

      ““One demo to show you why your current arguments have failed:
      I have a friend called Brian, my friends and family think he is imaginary but they cannot show evidence that he doesn’t exist.  I know that Brian exists, how do I know you may ask? Because he told me so. I know it was him telling me, Brian is a deity with special powers, he has the power to reveal something to me for certain. This power is proof that what he has revealed must be true!?
      ^^ that in a nutshell is your argument. Pathetic isn’t it?
      I know that Brian is imaginery because his philosophy lacks the pre-condition of intelligibility and there no multiple eye witness accounts/proof associated with him being a deity.”
      Utter speculation, there is no different between brian and your god, how can you know for certain that brian isn’t gods father? What evidence do you have that your god is somehow a special case that abolishes the same laws of logic you used to dismiss Brian?
      Please invest a few moments to read what a special pleading fallacy is as you are defining it beautifully seemingly without knowing it.
      Also eye witness accounts are unreliable and lend no credence to a discussion on logic.
      “So Brad if you’re so sure of everything…... how it is possible for YOU to know anything for certain to be true? “

      Who is claiming certainty here? You… not me. I ask for you to support your presuppositions form which you draw your claims yet you dance around on unfounded conclusions that you have not yet substanciated.

    • Jake says:

      08:09pm | 18/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “Wasn’t trying to prove existence”
      - WilliamK, 17/06/11

      “http://www.proofthatgodexists.org”
      - WilliamK, 01/06/11

      Well my mind is officially blown.

    • Jake says:

      01:36pm | 20/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “I know that Brian is imaginery because his philosophy lacks the pre-condition of intelligibility and there no multiple eye witness accounts/proof associated with him being a deity.”

      I’ve been an eye witness to Brian and spoken to him many times. He speaks to me and tells me His truth about the universe. He has the pre-condition of intelligibility and is a necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws - He told me so. That’s how I know He is real.

      Of course you probably won’t accept my proof of Him because you are deluded into believing in some false god.

      Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from Brian, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking.

      You have exactly zero basis for attacking the Brian claim. Your bible based world view is intellectually flawed and weak. (Wasn’t it only some years back that biblical scholars and Christians, swore that the sun revolved around the earth…..??)

      As a believer in Brian I can appeal to revelation from Brian in order to trust my senses and reasoning.  I have a basis for trusting my senses and reasoning to give me truth, while you as an unbeliever have none.

      Starting to get the point yet?

    • WilliamK says:

      04:11pm | 20/06/11

      o@Brad
      “What? Christianity has no justifications to claim any preconditions without proof, thus far none has been presented, only speculation.”

      I have supplied the proof. You don’t accept the proof because you are presuppositionally hostile to any proof for God. You lack objectivity and as this blog shows your reaction is one of anger and condescending denigration;.,..... well it’s hardly intellectually constructive regarding the proof I have supplied.

      See how similar your response is to the religious men of 2000 years ago. Nothing has changed regarding overwhelming proof and resentment towards God:
      Matthew 12 v 9 He (Jesus Christ) went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10 And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

      “Also, what faith? Faith implies believing something without evidence, what positive belief do I hold with lack of evidence?”

      You positively believe that your senses and reasoning are the ultimate authority. And you have no evidence to support your “blind faith” in your senses and reasoning, basing it rather upon circular reasoning…. as I have clearly demonstrated to you.

      “……. how can any such information “supplied” be considered ANYTHING BUT YOUR IMAGINATION?”

      Exactly as you yourself claim…..no proof will suffice for you. For the evidence is overwhelming. This is conclusive proof of you suppressing the truth so that you may hold to your blind faith.

      “So Brad if you’re so sure of everything…... how it is possible for YOU to know anything for certain to be true? “

      “Who is claiming certainty here? You… not me.

      Ooops….I thought you said Brian was for certain???

      And round and round and round and round we go…….. : )

    • WilliamK says:

      05:08pm | 20/06/11

      @Jake
      “As a believer in Brian I can appeal to revelation from Brian in order to trust my senses and reasoning.  I have a basis for trusting my senses and reasoning to give me truth, ………”

      Does Brian’s date of birth appear on your drivers licence……

      This latest attempt from you Jake shows all the hallmarks desperation.

      Extreme measures are required to support a world view based on circular reasoning. And as you said:

      “How do we know our reasoning can be trusted? Because it works.”

      But you cannot account for why it works…..other than it works because it works which is viciously circular.

      And round and round and round we go….

    • Jake says:

      01:08pm | 22/06/11

      “This latest attempt from you Jake shows all the hallmarks desperation”

      Your repeated insistence that you have your opponents on the ropes is the kind of thing I’d expect from a 10-year old. If your argument was as strong as you seem to think it is, it would speak for itself. You should spend less time claiming victory and more time answering the direct questions asked of you if you’re so confident.

      The “Brian” example demonstrates that “the pre-condition of intelligibility” and “multiple eye witness accounts” do not constitute proof that a magical being exists. “the pre-condition of intelligibility” is an unverifiable claim that could be attached to *any* mythical being and “multiple eye witness accounts” can be obtained for just about anything.

      You claim that you have an objective, logical reason to believe that your god exists. Yet, as the “Brian” example demonstrates, the “proof” you’ve claimed so far could be equally applied to any mythical being.

      Remember when I asked you whether you believed in a half-dozen other gods and if not, why not? Remember when you said that I had “raised a number of excellent issues” but you never responded to the question? Now’s your chance.

      “But you cannot account for why it works..other than it works because it works which is viciously circular.”

      But you cannot account for why your god exists..other than it exists because it says it exists which is viciously circular.

      There is a difference between circular reasoning and self-evident fact. Circular reasoning is when two separate assertions rely on each other as proof for themselves. For example:

      1. God exists because it says so in the bible
      2. The bible is accurate because it is the word of god

      For point 1 to be shown true, point 2 must be shown to be true. But for point 2 to be shown to be true, point 1 must be shown to be true. *THAT* is circular logic.

      It is *not* circular logic to say “It is red because it is red”. It is simply Prima Facie - self-evident to any observer unless rebutted with evidence. Regardless of the above, you are misrepresenting my position when you say I am claiming “it works because it works”.

      For example, say I have a ball which observe is red. It might not really be red, for instance I might have just become color blind and it’s actually green. But if I show it to my friend, and he says it’s red, then I can be pretty confident that I’m right. Just to be sure, I could show the ball to millions of other people. If 99% of them agree that it’s red, then it’s pretty safe to say my eyes correctly sensed the color of the ball.

      I can never categorically prove that the ball is red because reality doesn’t often provide perfect proofs, only levels of confidence. I may have shown it to a million people who also just became color-blind and we were all wrong. However to assume that this is the most likely scenario would be pretty silly.

      That is exactly how science works. Any theory is evaluated and results observed by hundreds, maybe thousands of independent parties. Only when the vast majority agree that the theory makes sense and that the results are real and can be replicated, is it trusted.

      I’m not saying my senses “work because they work”. I’m saying I am confident my senses work because they agree with the independent senses of almost every other human walking the earth. When I see a red ball, I can be confident that just about everybody else will agree with me that it’s a red ball. Could all of us be wrong? Possibly. Is it reasonable to believe that to be the case? No.

      “But you cannot account for why it works”

      What is it that you keep insisting needs to be accounted for? Why do you assume that there must be a reason for it? Could it not simply be that it works and that’s it? Reason and purpose are human concepts. A rock isn’t necessarily sitting somewhere for a reason, it could just be where it ended up after a string of events left it there. Are you assuming that every occurrence must have a purpose?

      Do you constantly have to ask god whether what you are experiencing is real or do you accept that your senses are the best resource available to interpret the world around you?

      When you cross the road, do you use your eyes to look for cars or do you close them and ask god when it’s safe to walk?

      If your reasoning can’t be trusted, then how do you reason that the voice which tells you this is your god? How do you know you are not just hearing voices as would a schizophrenic person? How do you know the voice isn’t something other than god?

      My guess is, as with most believers, faith, which would be fine except that you’re claiming proof and *THAT’S* what we’re all waiting for you to produce.

    • WilliamK says:

      05:58pm | 22/06/11

      @Jake says:
      “the pre-condition of intelligibility” is an unverifiable claim that could be attached to *any* mythical being”

      No I don’t agree. For example, Islam was invented by one man (making it unverifiable) during a period when moon worship was widely prevalent (top of every mosque is a moon, Ramadan revolves around the moon, etc, etc), it was enforced on local communities with violence (and still is violent) and Mohammed’s fourth wife was a child of nine years (making him a paedophile), the Koran has about a ten percent translation error rate (making it unreliable), Mohammed never claimed to be God, the Koran contradicts itself,……. and I could carry on and on. In short, Islam lacks the pre-condition of intelligibility and is inherently contradictory.

      The same criteria applies to every other religion in the world – just do your homework and you will see how easy it is to undermine the credibility of every world religion.

      “…..and “multiple eye witness accounts” can be obtained for just about anything.”

      So then our court system/jury system is unreliable? No, we test the evidence with eye witness accounts and we have a reliable working system. And you have just contradicted yourself with your red ball example below.

      “But you cannot account for why your god exists..other than it exists because it says it exists which is viciously circular.”

      No I don’t agree. The Christian God exists because universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature. The existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

      The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything. I’ve demonstrated that you had to borrow from the Christian world view to debate me.

      I’m not claiming that the proof does not say that you do not prove things. But you have to borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

      This type of logical proof deals with “transcendentals” or “necessary starting points,” and the proof is called a “transcendental proof.” Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him.

      Remember you are unable to account for abstract, invariant, universal laws. I’m so confident that you cannot account for these that I happy to concede that if you can, I will re-consider my position.

      “I can never categorically prove that the ball is red because reality doesn’t often provide perfect proofs, only levels of confidence.”

      I don’t agree Jake. I know some things for certain. Absolute truth exists everywhere due to the logical impossibility of the contrary. But as an atheist you cannot know anything for certain.

      “That is exactly how science works. Any theory is evaluated and results observed by hundreds, maybe thousands of independent parties. Only when the vast majority agree that the theory makes sense and that the results are real and can be replicated, is it trusted.”

      I don’t agree Jake. Why does water boil at 100 degrees today and it did yesterday, and will do so again tomorrow? How do you account for the uniformity of nature? And must a thousand people say it boils at 100 deg before I’m to believe that it does?

      “What is it that you keep insisting needs to be accounted for? Why do you assume that there must be a reason for it? Could it not simply be that it works and that’s it? Reason and purpose are human concepts.”

      No they’re not. Yes I want to know why.

      Are you assuming that every occurrence must have a purpose?

      Absolutely.

      “Do you constantly have to ask god whether what you are experiencing is real or do you accept that your senses are the best resource available to interpret the world around you?”

      I can account for immaterial, invariant, abstract laws. Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Your senses and reasoning are your bible.

      If your reasoning can’t be trusted, then how do you reason that the voice which tells you this is your god?

      If I were to hear a voice, the first thing I would do is check to see if it’s a quotation from my bible. If not, I would know it’s likely to be deceptive and would ignore it. Therefore I do not look for extra biblical information (on matters of faith and conduct) because the bible is sufficient for all matters of faith and conduct. God did not speak to us using smoke and mirrors, nor did he expect us to make things up. He has given us his word, the bible, so that we may know things for certain and also because He hates religion.

      “How do you know the voice isn’t something other than god? “

      Other voices (spirits) can speak with us and are to be avoided.

    • Jake says:

      11:54am | 23/06/11

      Okay before I address these points individually, none of the problems you have with Islam are evidence that it has any less valid a claim than Christianity. Your claim is proof - what you have provided is not proof.

      In addition, you seem to be overlooking the fact that Islam worships the same god you do, they just think you have a corrupted view of him.

      “Islam was invented by one man (making it unverifiable)”

      Mohammed is Islam’s primary prophet, however he did not create the entire religion himself. In fact Jesus is a highly revered prophet in Islam (however they do not consider him to be the son of god).

      Regardless, being created by multiple people does not make a religion verifiable.

      “during a period when moon worship was widely prevalent”

      Why is this relevant? If religion is revealed to man by god then it shouldn’t matter when he chose to reveal it, should it?. Christianity arose in a time when people were ignorant to all but the simplest natural sciences but you’re happy to believe it because you believe it’s inspired by god’s word. It’s a little hypocritical to claim Islam is too old to be trusted but that your bronze age beliefs aren’t.

      “it was enforced on local communities with violence (and still is violent)”

      Christianity has had its history of violence and it is advocated in the bible for righteous purposes. Islam is much the same.

      “Mohammed’s fourth wife was a child of nine years (making him a paedophile)”

      Only by today’s laws. Certainly I find it reprehensible that someone would take a wife at that age, especially given what we now know but it was not uncommon among Bedouins. In-fact given social tradition at the time, many biblical figures would probably have taken wives at ages which would be considered illegal by today’s laws.

      In-fact it was only in 1889 that California was the first state in the US to raise its age of consent from 10 to 14.

      In any case, I can’t find anywhere in the bible which explicitly forbids taking a wife at *any* age.

      “the Koran has about a ten percent translation error rate (making it unreliable)”

      You clearly don’t know much about the Koran. In Islam, only the original Arabic is considered to be the true word. Translations are considered fallible and are to be used as commentaries only… Unlike the bible which accepts English translations to be as accurate as the original.

      “Mohammed never claimed to be God”

      So? What does claiming to be god prove? Mohammed claimed to be a prophet of god. If I claim to be god will you worship me?

      “the Koran contradicts itself”

      This comment is just pointless wheel spinning. I say the bible contradicts itself, christians say that’s only if you interpret incorrectly. You say the Koran contradicts itself, Muslims say that’s only if you interpret it incorrectly.

      “and I could carry on and on.”
      I’m sure you could, but you wouldn’t achieve anything unless you provide the proof you claim to posses.

      “In short, Islam lacks the pre-condition of intelligibility”

      This is completely irrelevant. Why do you assume that “intelligibility” needs to be bestowed upon us by god? Is it not possible that our ability to reason grew over time? Different creatures have a different capability to apply reason so does this mean that they were given differing percentages of intelligibility from god?

      Even if we were to agree that intelligibility was bestowed upon us by an external, intelligent agent - how can you prove that it was the agent which you believe and not a different one?

      “just do your homework”

      That’s rich coming from you.

      “So then our court system/jury system is unreliable? No, we test the evidence with eye witness accounts and we have a reliable working system.”

      Do you think courts accept written eyewitness accounts from absentee witnesses as evidence? Of course not. Eyewitness accounts are only relevant evidence if the witness can be questioned. Most courts will not even accept eyewitness accounts as evidence unless the witness is present for cross-examination. The reason being that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable sources of evidence.

      Ask any magician how reliable an eye witness is.

      “And you have just contradicted yourself with your red ball example below.”

      There is a very significant difference between a few dozen written testimonies from 2000+ years ago and the fact that 7 billion people all have roughly similar ability to sense light, sound smell etc.

      There is an even bigger difference between this and the scientific process of peer review where thousands of experts evaluate the research and are required to back up their “eyewitness accounts” with independently verifiable evidence.

    • Jake says:

      11:59am | 23/06/11

      “If I were to hear a voice, the first thing I would do is check to see if it’s a quotation from my bible.”

      So then your basis for believing the voice in your head is the bible, which you believe because the voice in your head tells you to?

      “The Christian God exists because universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature”

      Why not? Explain to me how you reach the conclusion that natural processes cannot or should not behave in a consistent, repeatable way? The entire universe is made of the same stuff in different arrangements, so why wouldn’t it behave consistently?

      Even if I were to agree with you that “universal, immaterial, unchanging laws” somehow didn’t make sense nationalistically, why is only the Christian god be an acceptable explanation? Could it not be some other being which you’ve never even heard of? Proof requires that you have eliminated all other possibilities.

      “The existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.”

      ... in your opinion. You’re claiming proof, not faith.

      “transcendental proof”

      Transcendental proof is a subset of Kant’s Logic of Pure Reason which I’m betting you haven’t ever studied. While it has it’s uses, you can’t just apply it to any old subject and think that it will deliver any corollaries to the real world. Like most tools, in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to use it, it will generally not provide any benefits.

      “Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity.”

      It is only reduced to absurdity if you assume that the god of christianity was a necessary starting point for us to develop the ability to reason. I’m not assuming that, you are.

      “You have to assume God in order to argue against Him.”

      No, you have to assume god in order to use god as evidence against his own existence. Hence the futility of arguing biblical inconsistencies with a believer. Where in my arguments have I assumed the existence of god?

      “Remember you are unable to account for abstract, invariant, universal laws.”

      Have you not read any of my replies? As far as I’m concerned, there is nothing to account for.

      “I don’t agree Jake. I know some things for certain. Absolute truth exists everywhere due to the logical impossibility of the contrary. But as an atheist you cannot know anything for certain.”

      Well at-least we can agree on something. I do not claim to know anything for certain, only with varying degrees of confidence. If I said I knew something for absolute certain, then I would preclude the possibility of ever being incorrect about it. I’m honest enough to admit that while I may be confident about some things, I’m willing to be shown to be wrong if that’s what the evidence says. That’s why as I gave grown, both emotionally and intellectually, my view of the world has changed. Absolute certainty is the death of intellectual growth.

      “I don’t agree Jake. Why does water boil at 100 degrees today and it did yesterday, and will do so again tomorrow?”

      Why wouldn’t it? Water is made of the same things today as it was yesterday and it will be tomorrow so why would you expect it to behave differently? If you’re going to use this consistency as evidence against naturalistic cause, then you need to show why this shouldn’t be the case.

      “And must a thousand people say it boils at 100 deg before I’m to believe that it does?”

      Yes. The reason I know it boils at a certain, consistent temperature (at sea level) is because the experiment has been repeated enough times by enough people that we can be confident that it is the case. How else would we know it? Is it in the bible?

      The fact is that if I boiled tap water myself it wouldn’t boil at exactly 100 deg C due to impurities in the water and my altitude. It is only through the many carefully controlled repetitions of the experiment that we know with reasonable certainty exactly what temperature boils.

      Jake: “Are you assuming that every occurrence must have a purpose?”
      WilliamK: “Absolutely”

      Why?

      “Your senses and reasoning are your bible.”

      My senses and reason are my source of information - if that’s what you mean. It certainly makes more sense to use these for information rather than the bible as the bible doesn’t change to incorporate new information. Does the bible say my ball is red? Does the bible explain how to get a rocket from here to a Mars orbit?

    • WilliamK says:

      02:33pm | 24/06/11

      @Jake
      I don’t want to be rude but you make up a lot of stuff to suit your worldview. And the only person you’re kidding is yourself. I’m not going to reply to each of the points you raise above, as I just don’t have the time or space. Furthermore, I’m not sure that you are sincere in some of your replies, because some of your claims are so outlandish. Please accept my sincerest apologies. One would have to have numerous face-to-face conversations to unclutter this nonsense.

      However I would like to respond to what I perceive to be the main issue.

      You say:
      “ As far as I’m concerned, there is nothing to account for.”

      That’s hardly an intellectual response. Especially if you cannot respond because you do not have an answer. I think it’s a cop-out on your part. It’s a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room.

      “Absolute certainty is the death of intellectual growth.”

      Are you certain about that? Or is that the only permissible certainty in your worldview. You see, you contradict yourself all the time as you babble around the main issues. Are these not the signs of a dogmatic old man, whose heart is hardening as he grows weary?

      “If you’re going to use this consistency as evidence against naturalistic cause, then you need to show why this shouldn’t be the case.”

      I have, and you don’t have a comeback, instead choosing to ramble on about non relevant matters.

      “Yes. The reason I know it is because ………. enough people (confirm it) that we can be confident that it is the case. How else would we know it?”

      Using the same logic, the overwhelmingly majority of people in the world believe atheism/agnosticism is pie in the sky. Yet you choose to proceed with the significant minority, because of the selective (lack of) information you rely on, and circular reasoning. Yet another inconsistency Jake.

      “My senses and reason are my source of information”

      At least you’re honest enough now to concede that you rely on circular reasoning. However, your method of acquiring knowledge pertaining to the universal, invariant and abstract God of the universe is severely lacking.

      “It certainly makes more sense to use these (senses/reasoning) for information rather than the bible as the bible doesn’t change to incorporate new information.”

      The bible is sufficient for all matters of faith and conduct – there is no new information. Why don’t you apply your senses and reasoning to the study of the bible, before you just dismiss it as irrelevant, choosing instead to blindly embrace Wikipedia whole heartedly.

      Does the bible say my ball is red? Does the bible explain how to get a rocket from here to a Mars orbit?

      No it never claimed to. And that’s not enough reason to dismiss it. But it does explain how to be reconciled to the universal, invariant, abstract God of the universe. It does explain how make peace with your Creator.

      The Bible teaches us that there are two types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God’s existence and those who suppress the truth of God’s existence. The options of ‘seeking’ God, or not believing in God are unavailable.

      Which category do you belong to?

    • Jake says:

      02:37am | 26/06/11

      “That’s hardly an intellectual response. Especially if you cannot respond because you do not have an answer. I think it’s a cop-out on your part.”

      This from the guy who listens to voices in his head because it tells him to in a book, ostensibly written by the voices, and then criticizes others for circular reasoning.

      “Please accept my sincerest apologies. One would have to have numerous face-to-face conversations to unclutter this nonsense.”

      Each of my comments is a direct response to yours. If you find any of them nonsensical, you can respond showing why and I’ll address it. Either that or just whine that it’s too much and don’t respond to any of them.

      “That’s hardly an intellectual response. Especially if you cannot respond because you do not have an answer.”

      How do you account for red? Note that whatever response you give, if it is not the one I want to hear, I will ignore it, tell you that you haven’t answered the question and ask it again.

      If you asked me to “account” for the mess on the floor, then I would tell you how the mess got there. So I “accounted” for the laws of physics by explaining what they were and why they were consistent. You just ignored me. I “accounted” for the laws of logic by explaining what logic was and why it’s laws were internally consistent. You just ignored me.

      If you’re going to ignore my answers and keep asking the same, pointless question, then don’t expect an answer anytime soon. As far as I’m concerned, beyond the explanations I gave you, there is nothing which needs to be “accounted” for.

      “Are you certain about that? Or is that the only permissible certainty in your worldview. You see, you contradict yourself all the time as you babble around the main issues.”

      Did I say I was certain about it or did I say “I do not claim to know anything for certain, only with varying degrees of confidence”?

      Putting words into my mouth and then trying to use that as an example of self-contradiction is pretty… What term did you use? Oh yeah, “hardly an intellectual response”. Can’t find a contradiction so you just make one up? You’re a class act aren’t you?

      “I have, and you don’t have a comeback, instead choosing to ramble on about non relevant matters.”

      Oh you did? Would you mind pointing out for me where you explained why the universe should not behave in a consistent manner if it were not created by god?

      “Using the same logic, the overwhelmingly majority of people in the world believe atheism/agnosticism is pie in the sky.”

      You’re not good at comprehension are you? Atheism/Agnosticism are subjective and not independently testable. There is a very significant difference between peer review, independent verification and popularity contests.

      “At least you’re honest enough now to concede that you rely on circular reasoning.”

      It’s getting increasingly funny to me how regularly you can invoke a term you don’t understand.

      “But it does explain how to be reconciled to the universal, invariant, abstract God of the universe.”

      And Star Trek explains how warp drive works. Just because it says it in a book, doesn’t mean it’s reality.

      The bible just gives an answer to a pointless question and you accept it. If that’s your foundation for “proof” then you really haven’t a clue what the term means.

    • Jake says:

      02:44am | 26/06/11

      “Why don’t you apply your senses and reasoning to the study of the bible, before you just dismiss it as irrelevant”

      Why don’t you apply your senses and reasoning to the study of the subjects that you invoke before you just act like you’re an expert? If you’ve ever done any formal study in logic or philosophy I’ll eat my keyboard because your understanding of both is non-existent.

      I’ve studied the bible. I’ve studied the bible from both sides, as a believer and as an Atheist. I spent far too many years learning of god’s glory, hearing god’s perfect word and feeling god’s jealous love….. Right up until I decided to take an *honest* look at both sides.

      Once I started to read and learn the reality of the scientific method and what different theories had to say - rather than what I’d been spoon-fed by other believers - it became very apparent that I had spent far too long making excuses for bronze aged religious texts rather than holding them up to the scrutiny they deserved.

      “choosing instead to blindly embrace Wikipedia whole heartedly.”

      I don’t accept any information blindly. I ask for links and citations because I want to understand where you get your information from. You are the one who blindly and unquestioningly accepts what your bible says (or the voices in your head). Don’t project your shortcomings onto me.

      “Which category do you belong to?”

      Your categories, like just about everything else you say, are relevant to nobody but yourself.

      I’ve answered your question quite clearly, multiple times and you’ve just ignored me every time. If that’s all you’ve got, then I suggest you go back to the drawing board and maybe try *LEARNING* about some of the subjects you invoke before you use them.

      It’s tragic to watch you invoke terms like “transcendental proof” when you’ve clearly just read it on a web-page and not even bothered to research the meaning of the term. Having said that, if you were able to wrap your head around Kant, I’d be extraordinarily surprised.

      You do not understand logic, you do not understand physics, you do not understand pure reasoning, yet you invoke them all in some ill-fated attempt to prove the existence of god.

      You’ll always have your faith, but I’m afraid science and reason are not on your side.

    • WilliamK says:

      01:43pm | 27/06/11

      @Jake
      Yet again the main issue is not addressed!

      “I’m not saying my senses “work because they work”. I’m saying I am confident my senses work because they agree with the independent senses of almost every other human walking the earth.”

      So you use your senses and reasoning to validate feedback that your senses and reasoning are working?..... : )

    • Jake says:

      01:16pm | 28/06/11

      “So you use your senses and reasoning to validate feedback that your senses and reasoning are working?”

      No, as I said several times, I’m using the senses and reasoning of other people to validate that my senses are working. What aren’t you understanding?

      I still don’t see how this qualifies as proof of the existence of god and I’m kind of sick of answering the same pointless question over and over again.

      It’s been almost a month now and I’m still waiting for you to make a point. Where is your proof that god exists?

    • WilliamK says:

      07:17pm | 28/06/11

      @Jake
      “No, as I said several times, I’m using the senses and reasoning of other people to validate that my senses are working. What aren’t you understanding?”

      So you use your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning, that the feedback on your senses and reasoning from others is valid?

      And round and round we go…. : )

    • WilliamK says:

      10:38am | 30/06/11

      @Jake
      “It is only through the many carefully controlled repetitions of the experiment that we know with reasonable certainty exactly what temperature boils.”

      Begging the question Jake - assuming the proof in the proof that you provide for it. The sky is blue because it is blue…. : )

      I assume from your lack of response that you’re unable to account for the validity of your senses and reasoning confirming my assertion that your atheistic world view is intellectually flawed based entirely on circular reasoning.

      You have no intellectual credibility to therefore deride our worldview based on the undisputed (intellectually) fact that Jesus Christ walked the earth 2000 years ago, claiming and demonstrating that he was the Son of God. May I encourage you to stop denying the God whom you know exists.

    • Jake says:

      10:59am | 01/06/11

      @men’s unnatural urges cause HIV
      Your silence if deafening…

      Are you going to respond to my comment and provide a *peer-reviewed* source for your claims about the cause of AIDS or can we all assume that you retract the claim?

      You can spread that dreck at Sunday school but you can’t pervert science to support your bigotry here.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:03pm | 01/06/11

      Sorry Jake I’m having Computer trouble and could not comment under your post…

      http://www.lightparty.com/Health/LackOfEvidence.html
      http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm
      http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hiv-aids/DS00005/DSECTION=causes

      Ok Jake I have given you 3 links in reference to Aids there are many more, some say the same others are different, most contradict each other as well as previous Scientific findings which at the time they believed were True and propagated,  now some only agree partially others reject it completely and so on but don’t loose hope Jake tomorrow they may believe something new or maybe next week and it will go on and on…

      So Who knows without doubt,  who has all the right answers,  Who Created us, Whose Truth never Changes ... what does He say ...

      Romans 1 :24 -27 Therefore God our Creator gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to Sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the Truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the created things rather than the Creator who is the Lord and is to be praised forever Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their Women exchanged Natural sexual relations for Unnatural ones.  In the same way the Men also abandoned Natural relations with Women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other Men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their wrong doing.

      Of course the word Aids is not mentioned with it being a Modern word like Dinosaurs, Rapture. Trinity,  D.N.A etc but as you can see with Aids the Scriptures refer to them all in a way that leaves no doubt as to what they are in reference to.

      It is not God who wants us to suffer Jake and it is not His will that we choose to do things that causes us or others to suffer it grieves Him greatly ... it is not His will that man does what causes Aids or that they spread it to others including woman and Children… Still He does not hate them even though they do evil,  nor do Born again Christians,  how can we when we deserve to die for the evil that we have done. 

      God does hate indeed what they do because it hurts them and others like Murder, steeling Lying or any evil act .....  that is why He warns them in the Scriptures and continues to warn them through His people,  He does not want anyone to perish. If He didn’t Love us He would not have sent His Son Jesus Christ knowing He would suffer for the wrong we did , which means if we believe in Jesus by acknowledging we are sinners and repenting from our heart and because we have been saved we will reflect Jesus and so seek to stop doing evil and do good with His empowing,  this also means we will not be punished for our past sins and we are under God’s grace until we have put the deeds of the evil flesh Nature to death and are perfected in Love…something as Christians we must all aim for and we do achieve this if we are in Christ Jesus and born anew of God’s seed.

      Take Care Jake - and remember keep your reflection clear-  Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      03:49pm | 01/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      Did you investigate any of these sources before you posted them? Did you even follow the links?!

      I’ll tell you the same thing I told the other person spouting this nonsense: there is a lot more to academic research than googling the phrase you want to find and copy-pasting the results. Of the three sources you have linked, *none* of them refers to an academic paper in any journal which I could read in order to investigate the source. Not one. Are you even aware how the process of research publication works? I’m not interested in a call-in interview on a morning light-entertainment radio program. That isn’t evidence to support your claim. Without a published source, there is no way for anybody - not you, not me, nobody - to establish if the claims made have any merit at all.

      Do you stop and think for one second before you repeat these silly claims about the ethics of claiming knowledge of something without any evidence to support it? Lets examine your links in detail:

      First Reference: http://www.lightparty.com/Health/LackOfEvidence.html

      This is a transcript of a morning radio program interview from 1997 where supposedly “eminent” scientist Charles Thomas explained what he saw as a lack of evidence for a link between HIV and AIDS. Now since neither you, the web page or the good doctor provided any references, I had did some searches to identify the fellow. Here he is: http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/staff/thomas_cf.cfm

      The first thing you’ll notice if you do a quick scan of his papers (link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details;_term=(thomas cf[Author] AND mayo[All Fields])) is that he has never published a research paper on the subject of AIDS, nor has he participated in a published research group on the subject. Not one.

      More telling, however, is that for the majority of the interview, he is actually parroting research carried out by Peter Duesberg (whom he references near the beginning of the interview). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg)

      Now Peter Duesberg is a lot easier to research because he’s currently being investigated for Academic misconduct over previously rejected articles on the subject of AIDS which he published in - you guessed it - “Medical Hypotheses”. See my previous post or the following link for information about THAT journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses).

      Duesberg is a well-known and discredited denier of the link between HIV and AIDS. There’s a reason why I said “peer-reviewed” articles, Anne.

      Second Reference: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm

      I’m not spending much time on this one since it’s patently absurd that you’d consider this to be a relevant source. This is an interview from 1997 with one “Dr.” Eleni Papadopulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleni_Papadopulos-Eleopulos).

      For starters, she is not a doctor - medical or otherwise. Her only qualification is an undergraduate degree in nuclear physics from the University of Bucharest. She is hardly qualified to speak expertly on the subject. She is however the head of “Perth Group”, a special interest religious group aimed at denying the link between HIV and AIDS. I guess understanding of a subject and activism don’t go hand in hand do they Anne?

      The entire interview consists of Papadopulos attempting to point out flaws in existing AIDS research, while offering little or alternative research to support her own position. It’s a farcical excuse for a source. You may as well have provided a transcript of an argument I heard two homeless guys having about whether Jesus had wheels or hooves.

      <continued>

    • Jake says:

      03:52pm | 01/06/11

      3. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hiv-aids/DS00005/DSECTION=causes

      This is the best link of all. Not because - just like the others - it doesn’t actually point to any peer-reviewed publication supporting your bacterial hypothesis, but because it explicitly disagrees with it! The page states:

      “Scientists believe a virus similar to HIV first occurred in some populations of chimps and monkeys in Africa, where they’re hunted for food. Contact with an infected monkey’s blood during butchering or cooking may have allowed the virus to cross into humans and become HIV.”

      It makes no mention of bacteria or theories about the disease emerging as the result of anal sex. It even has a section titled “How does HIV become AIDS?”. Weren’t you the one saying it doesn’t?!

      Did you read this before you posted it? Because as far as I can see, it completely disagrees with your assertions that “it’s start has no connection to Monkeys has some have claimed” and that it originated due to “bacteria in the Male rectum”.

      Sorry Anne, but if you tried to use these references, even on an undergraduate paper, you’d have it thrown back in your face. If you’re too lazy to do proper research, then don’t have the audacity to rehash your nonsense as though you have proof to back it up - You don’t.

      Instead of worrying about trying to proving me - or other people who disagree with you - wrong, why don’t you stop for a second and think about the people who are negatively impacted when you repeat this dross. Do you consider their welfare when you spread misinformation about the horrible disease they’ve been burdened with or are you too busy finding ways to blame their affliction on themselves?

      You are espousing a theory that is in direct opposition to the scientific consensus on the subject. If you don’t have very strong evidence to support that stance, then you’re just cherry picking whatever you can find that agrees with what you want to believe - that AIDS is punishment from god for homosexuals.

      That is the epitome of intellectually dishonesty and once again, perfectly characterizes the attitude that this article is referring to.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      03:20pm | 01/06/11

      I have seen some lunatic posts on the punch before yesterday, generally from the same little segment of society (very small).
      However the sound of cuckoos flying around on this thread is defeaning, there are some truly warped people out there and most have imaginary friends.

    • Suzanne says:

      04:46pm | 01/06/11

      You are truly insane.

    • Jake says:

      05:43pm | 01/06/11

      You’re grasping at straws now aren’t you Anne? Will you have the dignity to admit you have nothing to back up your claims or just go on talking nonsense?

    • The Lone Gunman says:

      04:47pm | 01/06/11

      The former judge needs to stop repeating urban myths.

      He states the Church condemned Copernicus and Galileo for the heliocentric theory. False, the Church did no such thing. Father Copernicus and a Cardinal had set out the heliocentric theory before Galileo and neither was condemned, as they used correct scientific methodology and put their arguments forward first as a theory (we use the same process today in Science). In contrast, Galileo did not. First, his theory was not the planets in our solar system circulated the sun, but the whole universe did! That makes Galileo correct on our solar system but wrong on everything else. He was far more wrong than right. Secondly, Galileo got himself into trouble for stating it as a fact and not as a theory – just like you would today from the scientific community. Lastly, Galileo was a very difficult man who aggravated his own circumstances; we would him an egoist today.

      But the real facts do not support the calumny against the Catholic Church so instead we get ideology parading as facts. There are many other factual errors in this piece.

      Indeed we live in the time of the ugly atheist by a quick look at the posted comments.

    • Jake says:

      05:42pm | 01/06/11

      I’m sorry but you could not be more wrong.

      Firstly, Copernicus advocated a theory of heliocentrism which put the sun at the center of the universe - the same as Galileo. It was not until William Herschel more than a century after Galileo that scientists realized the sun was not at the center of the universe.

      Secondly, Galileo was most certainly persecuted by the church for his theories.

      Galileo had been ordered by the Vatican not to “hold or defend” the theory of heliocentrism because it disagreed with the biblical notion that the earth was the center of the universe:

      1 Chronicles 16:30 - “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.”
      Psalm 104:5 - “the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”
      Ecclesiastes 1:5 - “And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place”

      ... and so on. Despite this, Galileo continued to prepare his work. During this time, Pope Urban VIII had requested that when publishing his work, Galileo include arguments both for and against heliocentrism, being careful not to advocate for the former. He also requested that Galileo include a section detailing the Pope’s own views. Both of these are absurd requests, however Galileo capitulated to the second.

      Galileo’s book made an absolute mockery of the seminal work of Simplico which advocated the Aristotelian view of geocentrism by highlighting multiple errors and generally making the author look foolish. Unfortunately for Galileo, the Pope was a string supporter of Simplico and as such, was made to look rather foolish.
      As a result, Galileo was found to be “‘vehemently suspect of heresy’ namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.”

      The Pope placed him under house arrest for the remainder of his life and banned the publishing of any of his works.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Controversy_over_heliocentrism

      Don’t you think that qualifies as condemnation by the church?

    • Colin says:

      06:56pm | 01/06/11

      Jake, The reality is that at the time Galileo could not prove the heliocentric theory to be correct. Part of his attempted proof was that’, “the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth’s surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth’s rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun”. This of course is wrong.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Galileo.2C_Kepler_and_theories_of_tides

      Maybe Kirby could explain, without using the benefit of 400 years of hindsight, which of Galileo’s proofs the Church should have accepted and which they should have rejected.

    • Jake says:

      10:37am | 02/06/11

      @Colin
      Galileo supported heliocentricity with astronomical observations to about the best degree possible at the time. His evidence was quite thorough given the technology he had to work with. There were certainly mistakes and incorrect assumptions in there, but this is standard fare with science. It is the burden of every scientists to point out flaws and improve upon the knowledge of their forebears.

      Regardless of all this, the comment was made that The church did not condemn Galileo for his support of heliocentricity. He was expressly warned multiple times by the church that he was not to advocate the theory and when he did, he was imprisoned for the remainder of his life.

      Scientists - even the best ones - make errors. Einstein’s failures are common knowledge but I don’t recall him ever being placed under house arrest for arguing that quantum physics was nonsense.

      What happened to Galileo was unambiguously religious persecution. The churches justification for his imprisonment was:

      “That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture; “

      Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20040829092858/http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/492/stillwell/galileo_trial_docs.html#sentence

      Those are the words directly from the trial documents as translated by Finocchiaro. I don’t know how this could be more clear cut. Make no mistake - Galileo was imprisoned not because his research was flawed, but because he had the audacity to publish scientific findings which disagreed with the Catholic church’s interpretation of scripture. Nothing more.

      To answer your question: Which of Galileo’s proofs the Church should have accepted and which they should have rejected? It is not the place of the church to arbitrate over what science is acceptable and what is not, certainly not on the basis of scripture.

      Maybe *you* could explain, without using the benefit of the most absurd religious histrionics and hair-splitting excuses, which of Galileo’s proofs warranted the church locking him up for half of his life and banning the publication of any of his works?

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      05:16pm | 01/06/11

      Suzanne ... I concur with almost everything you say re crackpots, insane people, wackjobs.
      However I know what you are trying to say when refering to a sky fairy(god) spiritual interventionist supernatural dictator, unfortunately there is no such thing as an omnipresent omnipotent unversal puppetmaster, it is a figment of a few delusional souls weak brainwashed minds because they have to cling to a hope that there is a life after death.
      Apart from that I respect your view and comments well done.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:53pm | 01/06/11

      Hi Sir Ronald Bradnam I was just wondering when and why you were Knighted,  I remember a lot of Fairy Stories had Knights in them are you one of them?

      Seriously and respectfully though,  what an Honour! you must have done something excellent to be so Highly commended because only people who have achieved in a grand way are worthy to be knighted as a Sir - good on you!

      By the way did you find that Scripture about Aids I told you about,  as you know even Secular History tells us the New Testament was written nearly 2,000 years ago and also confirms that Jesus Christ was a real person who walked on earth they even say He did Miracles and they also tell us the Old Testament was written at least 3 thousand years ago. But how amazing as I shared with you before… these Scriptures say the earth was round not flat and if you remember they didn’t even have big boats let alone Space ships… wow how did they know?

      Also as I have shared with a few others who have posted,  the Scriptures tell us all about Aids and how it came to be and also D.N.A, Dinosaurs- and many other things that man couldn’t have possibly known. 

      In regard to D.N.A it was not that long ago before Pathology was as advanced as it is today,  a gift from God when used for good,  that they transfused blood from an Ape into a man, sadly he died,  they had mistakenly thought the Apes blood was the same as ours but of course the gean pool or D.N.A of Animals is different from ours… sad they didn’t read the Bible it would have told them they were in error even though the rat didn’t die ...

      I’ll share the Scriptures about D.N.A with you Sir Ronald,  I’m sure you will be as amazed as I was when I first read them perhaps you could share it with your friend Suzanne and all your other friends including those who have also been Knighted like you…  but how remiss of me of course I should wait till you ask… sorry I just get so excited and want to share the awesome Truths of God’s Word.

      Please thank Suzanne for me for checking out those links it only goes to show man doesn’t know everything only God does so who do we believe.

      By the way I don’t really call myself Queen Anne it’s not True,  well not yet so I don’t like to Lie - Keep your reflection clear-  Kind regards Anne

    • Colin says:

      08:25pm | 01/06/11

      Given that Michael Kirby has previously spoken out against laws that punish people for transmitting HIV I wouldn’t take what he says too seriously.
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/16/2304735.htm

      Too bad Kirby couldn’t use his fame to promote a culture of sexual faithfulness and restraint.

      As Bill Donohue of the Catholic League once said:
      “No one who ever followed the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality ever got AIDS voluntarily, but many who rejected these teachings have.”

    • Jake says:

      12:17pm | 02/06/11

      Nobody who avoided going in the water their entire life has ever drown. Does that mean the best solution to avoid drowning deaths is to never go swimming?

      Donohue’s simplistic analysis is something I’d expect of a 7 year-old and as with most religious “solutions” completely fails in the real world.

    • Colin says:

      12:25pm | 05/06/11

      Jake why do you have a problem accepting the concept of sexual faithfulmess and restraint as a sensible behaviour to avoid becoming HIV infected?

    • Jake says:

      02:49pm | 07/06/11

      @Colin
      “Jake why do you have a problem accepting the concept of sexual faithfulmess and restraint as a sensible behaviour to avoid becoming HIV infected? “

      I don’t. I do, however have a problem accepting that the best solution to the spread of AIDS is to preach abstinence outside of marriage and to deny the effectiveness of condoms and the usefulness of educating people in how to use them properly.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:48pm | 01/06/11

      Sorry Jake you misunderstood… I was not giving you the Links to prove my Statement but showing you how much they contradict each other which I explained later, there are many more if you would like to get totally confused… sadly as many do.

      To be honest Jake,  I find it strange you don’t believe what is staring you in the face but perhaps you never will although I hope not.

      As far as Secular Scientists go… Google some of their big misunderstandings,,, but as we all make mistakes when we Trust in our own wordily understanding it comes as no surprise to me and many other Christians.

      If I want to have something confirmed I don’t go to the Internet first I ask God and yes I do study as He leads me,  then He confirms it so I have no doubts, ask other Born again Christians, they understand what I’m taking about,  The Lord is always with us in Spirit we don’t walk alone.

      Now Jake as a Scientist you should be able to without using other peoples unproven research on the Internet use your own intellect and explain why you think I’m wrong about Aids and it would help you to remember that so much knowledge that is acquired from the Internet just can’t be Trusted there is a lot of error,  of course there are some websites that have proven facts but not many and this applies to Cults on the Internet who twist and add to God’s word or take away from it to deceive. Such as Jesus was not born at Christmas or that He wasn’t crucified on Good Friday or that He didn’t rise again etc sadly they don’t even believe in The Godhead or as it is called today The Trinity meaning 3 in one,  they say everything comes from a Pagan source,  but this has no relevance on what we have been shown to be True. 

      By the way they have no proof Aids came from Monkeys so apart from the fact that it has never been proven, it also contradicts God’s Truth, so this confirms that it is in error.

      God never lies…  man does or is very confused or ignorant and of course ego gets in the way ... Pride comes before a fall as they say… yes it is ok to have Pride in something or someone but it must have the right focus.

      Let me share with you once again Jake where Aids Originated…

      Romans 1 :24 -27 Therefore God our Creator gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to Sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the Truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the created things rather than the Creator who is the Lord and is to be praised forever Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their Women exchanged Natural sexual relations for Unnatural ones.  In the same way the Men also abandoned Natural relations with Women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other Men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their wrong doing. Take Care Jake - Kind regards Anne

    • Brad says:

      12:21am | 02/06/11

      Anne, thank you for making the internet a far dumber place.

      I could go into genetic sequencing, the source of SIV which lead to HIV but frankly its all pointless when you are so deluded by circular logic.

      The bible is true because god says its true which is true because the bible says its true and god says its true and the bible confirms it, that settles it, the end.

      ^^^^ this… is meaningless circular logic. The bible cannot be used as evidence to support the ideas created within it. That is a logical fallacy. It doesnt matter what your beliefs are, if you cant follow the simple guidelines of logic, there is no point in discussing ANYTHING with you on any subject as your brain cannot follow a rational path.

      You are correct about the internet producing a lot of misinformation, you have spewed forth pretty much all of the debunked intellectually void material I have ever seen peddled by a magic believer. Bravo for effort… but in doing so… as I stated at the beginning… congrats for making the internet a dumber place to visit.

      The key to searching the internet for science related information, is to search valid and renowned scientific institutions. Such as
      The royal society, Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Columbia, Stanford all provide science literature online.

      Lets not forget, Nature, World Health Organisation etc.

      Basically, before you want to reference any material, you need to make sure that the work is peer reviewed by reputable organisations. Creationists have a knack for claiming things are “peer reviewed” that are pumped out through dummy corporations. You wonder why we are so cynical when they resorted to such levels of deciet to lodge their views which are usually horribly riddled with errors and preconceived ideas.

      Also be very cautious of scientists who make large claims for fields in which they have no credentials. Such as a Mathematician or Chemist trying to make waves in the Biology or Geology communitiies. While it may not invalidate what they are saying, its usually a red flag that something is not quite right. This is akin to asking a dentist what to do about internal organ issues. They do not specialise in the area, therefore their statements fair probably no better than that of anyone working in the whole health care industry.

    • Jake says:

      10:07am | 02/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      “Now Jake as a Scientist you should be able to without using other peoples unproven research on the Internet use your own intellect and explain why you think I’m wrong about Aids”

      No Anne, this is where you’re wrong. You see I’m not complacent enough to think that I can speak expertly about the incredibly complex inner workings of a disease like AIDS when I don’t study it for a living. That’s why I rely on the research carried out by thousands of scientists who have dedicated their entire careers to understanding it.

      Are you really so vein to think that the hundreds of thousands of hours of research that are devoted to the subject and the entire careers dedicated to understanding it can all be written-off by your own intellect? Anne, if you believe this then I put it to you that you don’t have any intellect to begin with.

      Do you understand all sciences this intimately or is it just Biology? Can you settle the gaps between Quantum Physics and General Relativity for us all? We’re dying to know the answers. Maybe it’s written in that book of yours. Does Leviticus mention String Theory at all?

      You see Anne, this is why you mistakenly think there is a controversy or major contradiction among scientists on the subject of the origin of AIDS. There isn’t. With the exception of a tiny *tiny* handful of dissenters, the majority of which are equally unqualified to act as experts, there is a consensus that AIDS is caused by HIV.

      “Unproven research”? What makes you think you’re in a position to personally question *anyone’s* proof when you don’t offer any of your own? It never ceases to amaze me how easily you can write of the herculean efforts of scientists with just one sentence and then posit yourself as a better source of information.

      How much proof do you require that HIV is a mutation of SIV (i.e. it came from monkeys)? Have you even bothered to read the evidence that has been published? I’m going to come right out and say I don’t believe for a second that you’ve spent 1 minute reading publications that explain the evidence. I don’t believe you would even know where to start looking! You seem to just parrot back what you’ve been spoon-fed by people who want to believe the same things you do - regardless of whether the evidence supports them or not.

      I’m sure you’re not interested but here are a few publications to get you started (one is a meta-analysis) which explain some the many evidences that HIV is descended from SIV:

      http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol11no12/pdfs/05-0394.pdf
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088480/pdf/TB010867.pdf
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088484/pdf/TB010911.pdf

      ... and here are the summary links showing you citation rates etc. so you know I’m not just grabbing some non-reviewed article from a new-age rag:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11405934
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16485481
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11405938

      Why do you think I asked you for references Anne? You’re acting like you can’t trust the science because it’s so contradictory, and yet you couldn’t find a single peer-reviewed publication which agreed with you. Not a single one. The thing is that even though my job does not encompass AIDS research, it’s a subject that I have enough of an interest in that I can confidently tell you that you will not find more than a small handful of peer reviewed of papers which come close to agreeing with you, let alone prove some kind of controversy on the subject. The only controversy is among people who, like you, don’t understand the subject but want to decide the outcome anyway.

      I’ve provided a link to explain every assertion I have made. Most of them are to wikipedia which is generally an academic no-no, but I felt it would be more appropriate for someone like you since it’s highly accessible and it provides links to its own references which you can look up.

      Yet despite all this… Despite the fact that you admitted you could not back up your claims with evidence. Despite the fact that you clearly have no educational qualifications to claim expertise on the subject. Despite the fact that the experts all disagree with you, you’re still willing to spread your semi-literate opinions as though they were factual. That is nothing short of despicable.

      Your false information causes sadness and suffering but you don’t care. You are spreading misinformation but you don’t care. You embody everything that Michael Kirby is addressing in his article and I only wish you could see that because if I were you, I’d have trouble sleeping.

      You sit there and post infantile comments about other people’s reflections. I think you you should be looking long and hard at your own

    • Jake says:

      10:11am | 02/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      As for your bible verses… I’m loathed to do this because arguing over interpretations of the bible is like debating over who would win a fight between Superman and The Flash, but I think it illustrates my point so I’ll head down the rabbit hole.

      The passage you posted could be interpreted to mean an infinite number of things. “Due penalty for their wrongdoing” might suggest eternity in hell. It might point to suffering depression and alienation. It might point to being marginalized by their society (you seem to have that angle covered). That verse doesn’t mention AIDS. It doesn’t even mention disease. All it says is “penalty”, so what makes you so sure it means AIDS?

      It’s a fact that *most* gay people and people who engage in anal sex won’t contract AIDS in their lifetime, so if God’s handing out punishment for it he’s either missing a lot of people or that punishment takes the form of something other than AIDS.

      So how can you act as though this is proof that your single, narrow interpretation is ultimately correct? Especially when a vast number of Christians don’t even agree with your interpretation of that verse. How complacent are you?! You seem to have decided that you must be right and it’s everyone else who’s got it wrong.

      Why is it always the least knowledgeable who are the most confident in what they say? Learn some humility Anne, you’re not as bright as you seem to think you are.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      12:32pm | 02/06/11

      Sorry Jake you are in error again, if you read my posts you would find that I never said I know everything although in fact I said the opposite but you have implied you do by declaring because you are a Scientist I must be wrong and you must right, in Truth I said I’m still learning but what I know to be God’s Truth I have no doubts about.

      I’m also not concerned if others disagree with me, many people who claim to know all the Truth including some who call themselves Christians or Believers in God or some type of god contradict each other as we see on the Internet which is the same as Secular Scientists as I showed you by the links, this is why I don’t rely on anyone but God for confirmation of His Truth,  perhaps I should share why and how I came to have this certainty but with you not having wisdom in regards to the Scriptures and just trusting in others understanding you would have great difficulty in comprehending it or believing it as Truth .

      In response the Scripture that I shared about Aids,  it tells us that the penalty for what Homosexuals are doing wrong will be in their bodies it is not talking about final judgement or punishment,  Homosexuals like everyone else can come to heart repentance and be saved even on their deathbed only God knows a persons eternal Destiny, this is why we are not to judge anyone for eternal damnation.

      As for the many Homosexuals Jake that you claim do not have Aids Symptoms at this time,  you state that this then shows the Scripture I shared can’t be in reference to Aids .

      God tells us only He knows the future but perhaps Jake because you don’t believe in God you reject this also, so does that mean you can?  Can you really see into the future Jake and if so do you know every Homosexual in the world and if they will die from Aids or not and do you also know the Statistics of how many have already died from Aids or how many have died from Aids before it was given a name and if those who had contacted Aids if in its early stages died of an accident or from heart attacks etc before it was detected, or how many Homosexuals who do have Aids that medication has stabilised it but not cured it. Also they say that with Aids like some other diseases some people can be carries even if it does not affect them for many years later.

      Sadly they say Statistics show that 30 million people worldwide are affected by Aids, this number includes Woman and Children and this will no doubt triple if they don’t find a cure and sadly even with extensive research they still have not found one just medication to control the symptoms temporarily,  which thankfully helps stabilise it for a while like many other medications used today for other illnesses. Tell me Jake is this not enough penalty to show the evil results of wrong doing.

      Take Care Jake - Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      01:52pm | 02/06/11

      No Anne… There you go again, making stuff up. *YOU* said I was a scientist, not me, and my basis for saying you were wrong has nothing to do with my personal knowledge - as I clearly stated - it is due to the fact that the evidence categorically disagrees with your opinion. That’s why I gave you published, peer-reviewed sources - so you wouldn’t need to take my word for it.

      Is this the only mode your brain operates in? You deny anything you disagree with and proclaim knowledge based on nothing but your own interpretation of a couple of verses from the bible?

      You inability to show any intellectual honesty is quite disturbing. You claim that we now know that HIV did not come from monkeys and AIDS is caused by bacteria. When I ask for proof you supply hodge-podge of misinformation and nonsense. Then, in some vein attempt to cover the fact that your assertions are so plainly incorrect that even a child could see it, you claim that you were in-fact simply pointing out that there is a conflict among scientists on the subject. Now that I’ve demonstrated that you were wrong about that also, you try to fall back on scripture to get you out of jail. Anne, I couldn’t give two hoots what you think about gods word. It doesn’t matter to anybody but yourself.

      I don’t claim to know what is correct. All I claim to know is - at a very high level - what science has discovered on the subject of AIDS. I don’t claim to know how my TV works either, but I’m willing to accept that the science behind it is sound. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with accepted science. I don’t care what you think is reality or why you think it because it’s your right to believe whatever you want. What *I* object to is that you come to a public forum and use misinformation and evasion tactics to try and convince others that your opinion is based on objective fact and science. That is what makes you a liar.

      Let me remind you, these are *your* words:

      “Bacteria in the Male rectum that infiltrates the Immune system breaking down the production of good bacteria and eventually destroying it’s function and that it is passed on through intercourse”

      You stated those “facts” without reservation. When I asked you how you know with such confidence that your assertion was correct, you failed to provide any credible scientific evidence. Then you responded:

      “Let me share with you once again Jake where Aids Originated…
      Romans 1 :24 -27 ... <text removed for brevity>... Men committed shameful acts with other Men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their wrong doing.”

      So I showed you that your interpretation of this passage was far from conclusive and as such, it was unreasonable to claim to know the source of AIDS based on it.
      Now you’ve backed down to “I never said I know everything” and posting more unreferenced statistics that give no credence to your opinion anyway. But you still refuse to admit that your assertions were wrong and that you are unable to demonstrate any scientific controversy as to the root cause of AIDS.

      Put up or shut up Anne. Show us all how you could state with such confidence that you know for a fact that AIDS is caused by anal sex alone. If you can’t then don’t be so gutless as to keep moving the goal posts to avoid accepting responsibility for the misinformation that you are spreading.

      “God tells us only He knows the future but perhaps Jake because you don’t believe in God you reject this also, so does that mean you can?  Can you really see into the future Jake and if so do you know every Homosexual in the world and if they will die from Aids or not”

      I don’t need to see into the future or show how every homosexual from here to eternity will die in order to make my point. In-fact all I need to do to cite a single gay person who died of old-age without contracting AIDS. Quentin Crisp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Crisp) is as good an example as any. He made a lot of waves by being one of the first openly gay men in the public eye and died at 90 having never contracted the disease. If AIDS is punishment handed down from god upon all homosexuals, then all homosexuals should contract AIDS, should they not? However a majority of gay people die of old age just like the rest of us (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21493941 - Note: US Statistics).

      So why didn’t Crisp get the punishment you and god feel he so richly deserved Anne? You seem to know all about it. There must be a line somewhere in that bible of yours that tells us why such a flagrant homosexual would be spared god’s terrible wrath.

      Face it Anne, not only to you not know all of the answers, you don’t know *any* of the answers and as long as you rely on bronze-age superstition to understand the world around you, you never will. That’s your right, but please, don’t pretend your fairy-tales are supported by science and don’t lie to bring others down with you.

    • Suzanne says:

      02:23pm | 02/06/11

      “even with extensive research they still have not found one just medication to control the symptoms temporarily,  which thankfully helps stabilise it for a while like many other medications used today for other illnesses.”

      What?
      Are you really unaware that with proper treatment someone with HIV can live a long and productive life and even have children?

      I’m no longer reading your nonsensical ramblings. Your circular reasoning and complete lack of logic only serve to make you look foolish and your claim that the bible predicted AIDS is laughable.
      I sincerely hope that you are just the queen of trolls. It concerns me to think that there are actually people out there you know, influencing children.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:53pm | 02/06/11

      Hi Brad… who’s logic should I depend on yours,  if so please explain and prove how life started from nothing,  even Evolution Scientists have not been able to and so have no proof, and some have now confessed they just don’t know and others have covered over their repeated failures to reproduce life from nothing or without a live gene ... but perhaps you know what they don’t Brad,  if so please enlighten me if you can by using your own Logic,  then yes I will indeed listen to more of what you have to share with interest.

      Also no doubt you know that they have now found water on the Moon which was before believed to be arid. Does this mean that it is inferior to earth’s water having not produced life that eventually evolved into Mankind,  is it because there is not enough water and if so how much is needed to produce life….well one thing we know now and that is there are no Aliens on Mars as claimed for many years, or that there is no man in the Moon and do you really believe Brad that a Cow jumped over the Moon? my Logic says no what about yours?

      Maybe you can explain using your logic if we did indeed evolve from simplistic life forms in the water why then is the D.N.A or gene pool of Humans, Animals, fish and birds are all different, yes it has some of the same identifying patens in the blood , skin , and hair etc this is because of God’s signature or blueprint but they do not gel completely and so do not have the same Ancestral base.

      Could you also enlighten us Brad how the Apostle Paul who wrote the Scriptures below knew this Truth when Pathology and the understanding of D.N.A as we know it today was not even discovered. 

      1 Corinthians 15:38-40 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

      Perhaps you know too how the Scriptures could tell us there is more than one Heaven without Space exploration etc they say God created the Heavens meaning the Heaven we see, the Heaven that has now been explored by Nasa etc and the Highest Heaven where God His Angels etc are.

      Well Brad I will leave it with you and your logic to work out these Truths that have been a mystery to so Many for so long -  by the way God uncovers Mystries - Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      05:24pm | 02/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      Oh look! New subject. Who’d have guessed you also doubt evolution? Here we go again.

      “please explain and prove how life started from nothing”

      Sorry but no. You’re the one who claims god created life from nothing. You explain it because it’s a complete mystery to me how you could convince yourself of such a silly premise.

      “even Evolution Scientists have not been able to and so have no proof”

      Surprise ending! Anne doesn’t know what the theory of evolution is actually about!

      Sorry again Anne. Evolution does not attempt to describe how life began - this is not and has never been within the realms of the theory of evolution. Evolution explains how variety emerges between species. “Evolution Scientists” don’t investigate the genesis of life on earth as that is a different subject altogether.

      The subject you’re thinking of is Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

      “and some have now confessed they just don’t know and others have covered over their repeated failures to reproduce life from nothing or without a live gene”

      Oh really? Which ones? I’m interested in reading about these cover-ups, you see, because cover-ups are a very difficult thing to get away with in scientific circles. Generally when someone attempts to cover failures by fabricating results, somebody else spots it - and there’s nothing scientists hate more than spotting fabricated results.

      I’ll look forward to more quality citations from you Anne.

      “Maybe you can explain using your logic if we did indeed evolve from simplistic life forms in the water why then is the D.N.A or gene pool of Humans, Animals, fish and birds are all different, yes it has some of the same identifying patens in the blood , skin , and hair etc this is because of God’s signature or blueprint but they do not gel completely”

      You’re in luck! There is a science which predicts this exact scenario which is very well researched and understood. It’s called evolution.

      You see, if physical characteristics are passed down through generations by DNA - as predicted by DNA theory - and if small variations emerge randomly in DNA - as we observe in nature - then what we would expect to see is that over time, DNA of successive generations will vary increasingly as a function of generational gap.

      The result would be that given sufficient time, we could expect to see wide variations in DNA between species, with small similarities in common indicating some commonality in the past. *Exactly* what you’ve described.

      Hallelujah you’ve found the answer to your questions today! Praise Yahweh!

      To answer your question, Anne, the reason our DNA is very dissimilar to Birds and Fish with only small portions in common is because our relation to these clades is very, very distant. What you postulate to be “God’s signature” is clear evidence of the evolutionary relationship between distant species.

    • Brad says:

      02:13am | 03/06/11

      I realise Jake has answered this quite well, but i’d still like to reply raspberry

      “if so please explain and prove how life started from nothing”

      Sorry, no where in science is it claimed that something came from nothing. That is what creationists believe. They believe that magic popped everything into existence rather than accepting that there are rational explanations for pretty much everything up to and including the beginnings of the universe… spare us the lectures though, we have come so far in a short number of years, especially considering the vast amount of time we are dealing with here.

      It is not a wrong answer to say that we do not have concrete answers for everything yet…. but it is however completely absurd to fill those answers with magic as an answer… this is more of a “i give up its too hard” approach to learning.

      Also Jake nailed it with the mere fact that you have absolutely no idea what the theory of evolution is about, you are indeed referring to a separate field of study, Abiogenesis which again requires no magic to provide answers.

      “Also no doubt you know that they have now found water on the Moon”

      Funny, water is a very common chemical in our universe so it is of no real surprise that water may be found on many planets. Who has claimed that wherever there is water there must be life? As far as modern science is concerned, life is an extremely rare occurrence, how rare… we wont know possibly for many generations until we have the technology to get out there and explore. But keep in mind on a universe scale, even one in every one billion planets has some form of life would still mean that there are billions of planets potentially with life. Until you can understand just how many stars there are just in our galaxy, you cannot fathom how that extrapolates out when there are billions of galaxies..

      Even this does very small justice to just how BIG the universe is…

      http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

      “do you really believe Brad that a Cow jumped over the Moon? my Logic says no what about yours?”

      Funny, given your aptitude for the absurd, I didnt expect you to side with reason on this point.

      “if we did indeed evolve from simplistic life forms in the water why then is the D.N.A or gene pool of Humans, Animals, fish and birds are all different”

      They have branched to unique strands however, those strands all tie back eventually to a single root. It is not just genetic sequencing that confirms this, but endogenous retroviruses, fossil record, molecular variance patterns, pseudo genes, comparative anatomy, atavisms, vestigial structures etc… If you actually to the time to read the ACTUAL science rather than the creationist claptrap trying to mislead people to hang onto bronze age myths, you would see what a symphony of science has formed around evolution from dozens of scientific fields all finding supporting and unifying evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution.

      “Could you also enlighten us Brad how the Apostle Paul who wrote the Scriptures below knew this Truth when Pathology and the understanding of D.N.A as we know it today was not even discovered. ”

      How is that quote in any way to do with DNA, gut any goat, fish or chicken and you will see that the flesh is different. They knew nothing of DNA being a blueprint for how the body is formed nor that its only a few percentile difference between most mammals. This quote seems more to support the argument of “kinds” that anti-evolutionists spout, nothing about DNA. You are reading a lot into a very simple and non-specific paragraph.

      God is an excuse for stupidity, nothing more. God of the gaps… holes in human knowledge that as we advance will eventually all close up… leaving no room for magic or sky fairies… nor deluded fundies smile

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:31am | 03/06/11

      Sorry Brad you are in error again,  Christians do not believe everything came from the Big Bang or nothing as Secular Evolution Scientists and you claim,  unless of course they are living in deception… Those who know our God of Love,  believe 100% that He Created everything and it was good.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne.

    • Brad says:

      10:02am | 03/06/11

      “Sorry Brad you are in error again,  Christians do not believe everything came from the Big Bang or nothing as Secular Evolution Scientists and you claim,  unless of course they are living in deception…”

      Again you have NO CONCEPT of reality.

      It is only creationists that believe that the universe was farted into existance with magic… that IS creationist… god poofed it into existance and all was good. THAT IS SOMETHING FROM NOTHING. Science has never said this… gah… its pointless… I doubt you will ever be able to understand even primary school science.

    • Jake says:

      11:16am | 03/06/11

      Anne, just stop. I’m going to write the following in caps in the hope you will read and comprehend it:

      THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT IMPLY THAT EVERYTHING - OR ANYTHING - CAME FROM NOTHING.

      You do not understand the basic premise of the big bang theory. What you think you know about it is what has been spoon-fed to you by people who also do not believe in it. Regardless, you still spout on about it like you know what you’re talking about (much like AIDS and Evolution). It’s one thing ti disagree with something, it’s another to disagree with it when you don’t even know what it says!

      Do not comment on a subject if you do not understand it. instead, read the simplified description of what the Big Bang theory actually states at the link below and then, once you understand it, we can discuss what you consider to be it’s flaws.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:12pm | 02/06/11

      Hi Jake, so you are not a Scientist in that case using your own words and logic you do not have educational qualifications to claim expertise on the subject of Aids or anything else.  Sorry but I guess I was giving you the benefit of a doubt seeing you were claiming far superior knowledge then I have but it seems your still are only going by what everyone else’s understanding, which you admitted contradicts and changes. It also seems by what you said that you don’t know or care much about that past, present or future of those who suffer Aids, and this is due to the fact you are not Omnipresent,  God is.

      Anyone who can claim there is no God and that He is a fairy story without providing evidence which has been the case with those who have posted in this regard and many others in the world and who ignore the proof that He does indeed exist both through the confirmation of the Scriptures, History and what they can see around them in Creation should be the last people to demand proof.

      You say I should be interested in what the Scientists say Jake but your not interested in what God says, so why should I take to heart what
      man thinks when it is in contradiction to what God tells me. God’s Truth never changes or has error but you said Scientists do make mistakes and change their original findings and I agree what you say is very true it’s proven,  now before you jump up and down about Translations of the Scriptures changing and having differences or being in error I have already posted about these.

      But to be fair Jake, let’s both provide evidence to support our claims you in regard to God being a non entity and I to confirm where my knowledge about Aids, since you seem not to want to accept what the Scriptures say and trust in others understanding..

      By the way there are many people who call themselves Christians who are practising Homosexuals but as the Scripture I shared tells us even without the fact that it confirms where Aids comes from, that when they practice Homosexuality it is unseemly meaning shameful and it’s unnatural and in Christ Jesus this is not our reflection - 1 John 3:1-11

      Romans 1: 26-27 Even their Women exchanged Natural sexual relations for Unnatural ones. In the same way the Men also abandoned Natural relations with Women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other Men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their wrong doing.

      I’m sorry Jake that you think you have the right to accuse me of not caring for others but since you don’t even know me you can’t really judge and sharing what is God’s Truth does not mean I don’t have compassion for those who are in the grip of sin, how could I condemn them, I too was very much a sinner before God rescued me and I came to heart repentance and without His grace I would suffer eternal punishment and deserve it, my choice not His.

      God shows mercy to sinners giving them time to come to heart repentance because it is not His will anyone perishes and it is Him who ordained the amount of time we have on this earth before we are born and He knows those who are His and who will to come to Him and acknowledge He
      is God Almighty their Creator and that they are answerable to Him. I’m thankful that God gave your friend Crisp and many others time,  although we don’t know whether Crisp came to repentance do we or do you Jake? 

      In regard to why evil happens I have posted before explaining why there is evil in the world but let me just highlight, Evil is the Lack of Love and so it seeks to destroy, the Scriptures tell us God is Love and real Love can do no evil. Those who have tried to use Scripture on posts to repute this have no understanding of what the Scriptures are really referring to because as Non believes or those who are trusting in their own understanding or others, they don’t have the Holy Spirit Teaching them instead they are denying Him. so they cannot understand God’s Truth in Scripture and it is He who also confirms the reality of the Godhead or as They are called today The Trinty, I have also shared in detail before all about this .

      Jake just in case you are not aware, I have been abused, ridiculed, slandered and made fun of for believing in God and His Truth over and over again on Punch and so has my Bothers and Sisters in the Lord who I Love and to see them put down hurts but what really cut Deep was that our Heavenly Father, Jesus Lord,  Friend and Saviour and The Holy Spirit our comforter and Teacher all who are part of the Holy Godhead, who Love Sacrificially and in Completeness have also been slandered, mocked, cursed and denied and they are all without sin so please do not tell me Jake that those who choose to sin against God and cause Him deep grief without any heart repentance, feel hurt when someone tries to warn them that they are in danger because they do so because they care enough to do so - Take Care Kind regards Anne.

    • Brad says:

      10:12am | 03/06/11

      “Hi Jake, so you are not a Scientist in that case using your own words and logic you do not have educational qualifications to claim expertise on the subject of Aids or anything else”

      Truely the most hipocritical thing you have said yet… you do this ALL THE TIME, yet instead of quoting peer reviewed and widely accepted science, you trott out propaganda and down right lies claiming its the truth.

      “Anyone who can claim there is no God and that He is a fairy story without providing evidence”

      Whoa… WHOA WHOA WHOA…. stop.

      Anyone who makes a positive claim, must provide the evidence to support their claim. That is the basic fundemental of rational discussion and science.

      As it is you who is claming that a god exisits, it is up to YOU to provide evidence of such. We are rejecting your claim and shooting down your arguments, we require NO evidence to state that we reject your highly dubious claim that god exists without it first being proven… which going on several thousands of years now, is the only crutch religion has to stand on is… faith… which is a pointless sideshow of anti-rational discussion. Faith is never going to be proof as faith by sheer definition is believing BECAUSE there is no evidence.

      “God tells us He inspired all the Scripture, and they are without error ” and yet there are thousands of different interpretations of the bible… many sections are for “aesthetic purposes only” because they are batshit insane… without error my butt.

      How many times must it be said, the bible claims something, so the bible is NOT and never will be proof of something for which it claims… CIRCULAR LOGIC IS A LOGICAL FALACY!.

    • Jake says:

      11:05am | 03/06/11

      “I’m thankful that God gave your friend Crisp and many others time,  although we don’t know whether Crisp came to repentance do we or do you Jake”

      Back it up there Anne… Whether he recanted on his death bed is not at issue here. You were claiming that AIDS is a punishment from god upon homosexuals. Crisp was both homosexual and HIV/AIDS-free until the day he died. So either god was inconsistent in his application of his punishment, or your interpretation of AIDS being god’s punishment was incorrect. That being the case, it is unreasonable for you to claim to know with certainty that AIDS is gods punishment upon homosexuals.

      Also, for the record, Quentin Crisp was a British writer born in 1908. He was the subject of the Sting song “Englishman in New York”. While I respect the man, I could hardly call him my friend.

      “Jake just in case you are not aware, I have been abused, ridiculed, slandered and made fun of for believing in God and His Truth over and over again on Punch”

      Anne, in-case you are not aware, your belief in God isn’t a problem - not for me anyway. My wife is christian, as are many of my friends. And reading the comments, I can find very few, if any, examples of anyone ridiculing the fact that you believe in God or “His Word”(TM). What I, and most of the other commenters are referring to is the lies and misinformation which you are disseminating. As I said several times, you can believe what you want, whether it disagrees with science or not. You can go and preach that you think God gives AIDS to homosexuals as punishment. But don’t pretend to have proof to back that claim up because you don’t. That claim, like most of your claims, is based on your personal interpretation of some verses form the bible and flawed and discredited research papers.

      When you say “It is my opinion that Evolution is not compatible with scripture and therefor I deny it’s veracity”, you are being truthful and people who hear your opinion can make up their own minds. However when you say “The science behind Evolution is unsound and I have evidence to prove it”, then you have to provide that evidence and it has to be sound. Otherwise you’re just trying to garner support for your opinion by lying about it.

      So ditch the victim complex Anne. Nobody here cares that you believe in God or that you believe homosexuality is evil enough to get it’s own special punishment. It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. The ridicule you’re receiving is purely the result of your continual spreading of misinformation as though it were scientific fact, nothing more. When you warp the truth to suit your agenda, you invite ridicule upon yourself.

    • Jake says:

      11:06am | 03/06/11

      “you can’t believe in both God and Evolution”

      Your conceit knows no bounds. Not only do you seem to think your opinion carries more weight than science, but you also claim to be able to speak for every believer on earth. There are many millions of people who believe in god and evolution. In-fact according to a Gallup poll carried out in the US in 2009, more Christians in the US believe the theory of evolution is sound than don’t (Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx). I’m sure you’ll accuse those people of not being true believers or being bad Christians or something. Maybe the homosexuals have been confusing their minds? Whatever the excuse, the fact remains that plenty of people who believe in god also believe in evolution. Don’t mistake your personal inability to reconcile what you believe with scientific fact to mean nobody else can.

      “Anyone who can claim there is no God and that He is a fairy story without providing evidence… should be the last people to demand proof.”

      Interesting… So you think *I* should have to prove to *you* that god *doesn’t* exist. I’ll tell you what, if you can prove to me that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, I’ll get right on disproving God for you.

      It is logically impossible to provide evidence for something that doesn’t exist. Imagine for a second God didn’t exist - hard as that may be for you. How could I prove it to you? Should I travel forward to the end of time, take a photo of God not being there and bring it back to show you? Do I need to get a note from one of the other gods? If I point to scientific evidence of natural cause then you simply say God put it into action. If I point out inconsistencies or errors in the bible then you say I’ve interpreted it wrong.

      I have never claimed to have proof that God doesn’t exist much as I don’t claim to have proof Santa doesn’t exist, but I’m still quite happy to say I believe in neither. It is common sense to disbelieve that for which there is no objective proof. I’ll bet you don’t believe in any of the thousands of other Gods that various religions claim exist. Why do you disbelieve all of them but believe without doubt that your god is real? Did you find proof that all of those gods didn’t exist before you stopped believing in them?

      *YOU* however, have made quite specific claims which could be shown to be correct - beyond a reasonable doubt - if the evidence existed. You have claimed that AIDS is caused by bacteria in the male anus. If you can be confident that this is true, you should be able to provide a *peer-reviewed* paper which describes experiments showing this to be the case or which has provided a testable framework by which this theory can be validated. But you haven’t.

      I have provided 3 independent, peer-reviewed papers which indicate that AIDS is *not* caused by bacterial action and can, of course, provide more if you like. I expect you should be able to do the same.

    • Jake says:

      11:07am | 03/06/11

      Why don’t you just save your self the cognitive dissonance and admit that the only thing you can use to support your opinion is your bible. Science quite categorically disagrees with you - on both AIDS and Evolution - so don’t try to co-opt it to support your personal, unqualified opinions.

      To correct you again, I did not say that I *wasn’t* a scientist, nor did I say I was. That was, once again, your assertion. I’ve not bothered to quote my qualifications to you at all and I don’t intend to, because it isn’ relevant. I’m not submitting my personal opinion or research as evidence for what I’m saying about AIDS. I don’t need to rely on my own expertise on the subject because thousands of eminent experts before me already know far more about it than you or I ever will. If I was saying “I know the causes of AIDS because I am an expert” then it would be quite reasonable to demand to know my qualifications, but I’m not. I’m telling you what the science on the subject says and I’m providing you the sources to verify it so you can read it for yourself in the experts own words.

      We don’t longer live in a world where one person can deeply understand several scientific fields. There is far too much information for someone to truly be knowledgeable about more than a very narrow band of subjects. I don’t do AIDS research so why would I have the complacency - like you - to claim to know more than the experts who have spent their lives studying it?

      Does your bible give you more knowledge about televisions than the researchers at Sony? Does you bible give you more knowledge about computers than the researchers at Intel? So why do you think your bible gives you more knowledge about AIDS than the researchers who specialise in the subject?

      Despite your assertion, I am not “going by everyone elses opinion”. I am extremely cautions what information I use to form my opinion. That’s why I spend the time I do investigating the veracity of academic sources I’m provided. How smart do you really think you are Anne? Do you really think the sensible way to approach the world is to decide what is correct on all subjects just based on what *you* believe because scientists are just too conflicted and keep changing their minds? If that works so well Anne, can you explain to me how the CPU in your computer works? I’m guessing not. If you can’t even explain something as ubiquitous as a microprocessor, why would you claim to be able to understand the inner workings of AIDS?

      Of course I admit that science “contradicts and changes”. If there were no contradictions, then it would never change, and if it didn’t change, we’d still believe the earth was flat and that disease was carried by smells. The strength of science is that it changes as new evidence becomes available. How can you sit at a *computer* using the *internet* and claim that the constant progression of science is flawed because it changes? Look around you Anne. I’ll be from where you are sitting there are at-least 100 pieces of technology that only exist because of the iterative, self-correcting action of scientific research. How do you think they came to be? Did someone pray to god in order to invent the light bulb or is there a book in the bible devoted to the subject?

      You’ll accept all the fruits of science but the second it disagrees with what you believe, you decide that it can’t be trusted. Your myopia is truly astounding.

      Only someone with your wide-eyed religious fervor could be so self-important as to think their opinion is somehow expert enough that they can personally write-off hundreds of thousands of hours of research with their own beliefs. You’re foolish enough to believe that AIDS is bacterial based on notoriously outdated and discredited research and yet you believe you can prove a causative link between the disease and anal sex because - by your interpretation - your bible says so? Give me a break Anne. If you think your bible gives you so much insight then tell me what it says about some other scientific riddles:

      Will the weight of the Higgs Boson be close to what the standard model currently predicts?
      Is Perelman’s solution to the Poincaré conjecture water-tight?
      Is there liquid water on Mars?
      If photons are both wave-like and particle-like, should they exhibit a diffraction pattern when fired individually through a double-slit?
      What is the exact make up of the core of the earth?

      I’ll give you a hint: We already already know at-least one of those answers. Does the bible agree with the scientific findings?

      The truth is your bible simply reflects whatever you want it to say. It is a completely useless tool to predict anything. Every time one interpretation gets proven to be wrong, the believers waste no time in concocting a new one so they can defend it’s accuracy. What date is the world ending now? 21-Oct isn’t it? I wonder what date it will be ending come the 22nd?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:40pm | 02/06/11

      Strange Jake for you not to know that I don’t believe in Evolution after all you can’t believe in both God and Evolution, but perhaps like many who believe in Evolution you know very little about Creation or the Truth that Evolution Scientists are denying God and calling Him a Liar and this is without any proven facts because there is none accept those that gel with Creation, but of course you have the freedom to try to prove God wrong Jake but I warn you He is not a Fairy even if you are in danger of Him waving you goodbye, but then you could still come to heart repentance, I don’t know your eternal destiny only He does,  but I do hope   you have some belief if so you need to ask The Lord to help your unbelief and also for His wisdom and for this I will be praying for you .

      God tells us He inspired all the Scripture, and they are without error when they are understood by the Holy Spirit through His confirmation of them, yet Evolution is claiming that God did not create everything in 6 days and then rested but that it took billons etc of years for us to all evolve and that it started by a big Bang and this belief discredits Genesis which God inspired and which clearly tells us that He created everything good by His Living Word and by The Holy Spirit who are The Godhead 3 in one, all within the 6 day time period as stated in Genesis and that one day is as we know it Morning and Night and it could not have any other way because of the sequence of Creation, otherwise nothing would have survived.

      So you tell me Jake why I should believe in the unproven beliefs of Scientists who propagate Evolution when it claims our Holy God and Creator is a Liar, sorry but if you think I should you are delusional as well as deceived going by your statements.

      Since it seems you are answering for everybody Jake or at least for some who post, because the statement about D.N.A that you quoted was on the Post to Brad, so if you are then please answer what I asked Brad about the Scripture that talks about D.N.A… see below. 

      Could you also enlighten us Brad how the Apostle Paul who wrote the Scriptures below knew this Truth when Pathology and the understanding of D.N.A as we know it today was not even discovered. 

      1 Corinthians 15:38-40 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

      I have a full day tomorrow Jake so will catch up with you on Punch at night if I have free time or Saturday - Take Care - Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      11:51am | 03/06/11

      “So you tell me Jake why I should believe in the unproven beliefs of Scientists who propagate Evolution when it claims our Holy God and Creator is a Liar”

      Evolution does not state, suggest or imply that God is a liar. Evolution does not contain any conclusions which could be construed in any way, shape or form to be speaking to the existence or otherwise of *any* deity.

      The Theory of Evolution describes a mechanism which, by observed natural processes, variety can emerge in living species which inherit traits from their predecessors. That is *all* it describes.

      * Evolution does not suggest that the universe was created by a big bang.
      * Evolution does not theorise on how life first emerged on earth.
      * Evolution does not describe the internal combustion engine.
      * Evolution does not drink all the milk and put the empty carton back in the fridge
      * Evolution does not leave the toilet seat up
      * Evolution does not call god a liar or say god does not exist

      The theory of evolution describes very accurately what we see in nature. It is better supported by experimental evidence that germ theory and it’s mechanisms better understood than gravity. Arguing that it does not happen is as foolish as arguing that the moon is made of cheese.

      If - in your opinion - evolution cannot be reconciled with god, then that is neither a problem with me or with evolution. I have no interest in your beliefs and neither does the theory of evolution. It is up to you how you choose to reconcile what you believe with what we can see.

      May christians are comfortable with both god and evolution. Some thing that god set evolution in motion. Some thing that the bible isn’t literal and that the creation story is allegorical. Some don’t care and just take the view that their inability to combine the two is just a limitation of their imperfect human mind.

      These all seem reasonable enough resolutions to me - even if I can’t agree with them. But what is not reasonable is to deny the evidence because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe.

      I don’t know how you should resolve your problem because it’s not one I have to deal with.

      “Could you also enlighten us ... how the Apostle Paul who wrote the Scriptures below knew this Truth when Pathology and the understanding of D.N.A as we know it today was not even discovered.”

      “1 Corinthians 15:38-40 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.”

      Are you serious? You think the above passage describes DNA? Do you even know what DNA is? All that passage says is that different animals have different flesh and that “celestial bodies” (which could refer to starts or angels or just about anything else I suppose) are different. Mankind has known that different animals have different stuff inside them since long before this scripture was written. Simply knowing that one flesh is different to another doesn’t imply any knowledge of the mechanism by which that flesh is propagated.

      DNA tells us *why* animals are made of different stuff - this passage does not. DNA explains heredity - this passage does not. DNA shows that every animal (humans included) is described by the same 4 nucleotides in different arrangements - this passage does not.

      If you walked into a genetic research facility and said “Listen up folks, I have it on good authority that not all flesh is the same” do you think they’d take that to mean you had an understanding of DNA?

      The passage you have quoted contains nowhere near enough information to indicate that Paul was referring to DNA. At best, it shows that Paul could spot the difference between a cow and a fish. Truly divine inspiration!

      This is why you get ridiculed Anne. Not because you are a believer but because you claim the most absurd proofs for those beliefs.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:17am | 03/06/11

      Thank you Brendan it’s nearly 7am in the morning and I have a full day ahead but what you shared needs to commended in that it Highlights that when our Logic is in error because it does not agree with God’s Truth then we better think again.

      It’s is not the Catholic Church that tells us we must not be sexually promiscuous, it is God, it is not the Catholic Church that tells us that Aids comes from Homosexual shameful and unnatural sex, it is God.

      The Catholic Church like all faithful Churches share God’s guidelines which He gave as warning because He Loves His Children and wants to protect them so that those who sin in and out of the Church may be warned and come to heart repentance and be Born again of God’s seed and so be set free in Christ Jesus from the bondage of sin. 1 John 3:1-11

      In other words Brendan because you are obeying God’s guidelines you are not seeking to absolve your guilt or others guilt caused through disobeying God,  by claiming that it is not Logical to assume that if you have sex that is shameful and unnatural according to God’s Truth that it won’t have negative long team results by trying to compare it with the Logic that you can’t cross a Zebra crossing without being in danger so let’s not leave home.  But of course we can cross a road safely if we obey the Traffic rules that guide us in how to cross without being in danger. And God has given us guidelines in how to Live without putting ourselves and others in danger,  if we obey them it does not cause fear and anger and to be defensive when we hear them.  The Scriptures tell us that many only want to hear what suits their own agenda.The Scriptures tell us that many only want to hear what suits their own evil agenda and people including those who call themselves Christians but disobey God can water down or reject God’s Truth in the Scriptures but that dose not delete them or make them irrelevant, yes as Christians we are under God’s grace but if we are Born again our actions and words will reflect our Salvation.

      In warning us that we will be punished for the wrong we do, God is in fact seeking to protect us in the same way the Law in our Country is, for example ... The Law states we are to always wear a seatbelt when in a moving car. As you know without one we are in danger but of course it is still our choice if we wear one. The decision not to of course will bring it’s own penalty which may be a fine or worse injury. So then do we blame the Law that enforces wearing a seatbelt when we are fined or injured. Yes we can find excuses or use Logic not to obey the Law and they may seem to have merit, like we may be trapped in the car and if it explodes and we will perish, even if this is not the reason most do, or we can claim because others don’t have to wear a seatbelt in other Countries so why should we, or we feel very uncomfortable wearing a seatbelt, or why should we after all we feel better doing our own thing and after all it’s our choice,  then of course they may say we were born without a seatbelt so why wear one now and besides others agree with me. How many people are injured from being thrown out of cars? how many even though they feel good speeding injure others as well as themselves? God’s Law like our Countries Laws are for our good, they are not to deprive us or cause us pain and they are not based on intolerance as most people understand it.  Yes God is indeed intolerant of wrong doing,  the same as the Law of the Land is, but it is for our good not bad.

      God bless you greatly Brendan as you seek to stand up for His Truth regardless of the cost,  you will be rewarded as the Scriptures tell us - Christian Love Anne

    • Jake says:

      11:59am | 03/06/11

      “Yes God is indeed intolerant of wrong doing”

      No he isn’t. If god is all powerful, and he did not tolerate wrong doing, there there would be no wrong doing. If God exists, then the fact that there is wrong doing can only imply two possible conclusions:

      1. God *does* tolerate wrong doing; or
      2. God is incapable of preventing wrong doing.

      Which is it?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:56pm | 03/06/11

      We all have free choice Jake if you are really interested in knowing more read my other posts on previous topics also.

      As I said to Brad Our Conversation has now ended Jake,  it seems you and the others have no evidence that God does not exist and as you all challenged me first that I was wrong to believe in God it is now up to you and the others to provide the evidence He doesn’t exist .
      In regard to my Evidence that He does Please read again my other posts…  as I said before I have provided proof that God is real even if you ignor and twist it… all all comes back to Faith expresed in Love.
      A word from God…
      Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. 

      Proverbs 12:15 The way of fools are right in their own eyes: but they that listen to Godly counsel are wise.
      Take Care - I hope and pray that one day you will all come to your senses.
      Kind regards Anne.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      09:50am | 03/06/11

      looks like the asylum is short a couple of lunatics.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:21pm | 03/06/11

      I thought I would say Hello Sir Ronald Bradnan, my visitor got held up, so now I have some free time,  let’s take this opertunity to reason together about your understanding that Christens believe in an Imaginary God, does this come from your Logic? but if your Logic is not based on proven facts then it’s a Fairy Story or were you not aware of that.

      But who am I to say, with you being above others in your capabilities to reason that your unserstanding of God is not real,  you must have proven facts other wise you must agree Sir, your reason is all make believe.

      Is this why you were Knighted Sir Ronald does it have anything to do with you having proof that God does not exist, are those who are in Power waiting for just the right moment so you can show your proof to the whole world and astound everybody by the evidence that God is just a Fairy Story.

      Am I implying that you don’t have proof or are not brilliant Sir, who I’m I to say so without evidence ??? but let’s get on with your Fairy story shall we ... So after having used your great intelligence and unbiased reason and logic to work out that God is just a Fairy Story you then did not give up until you found the evidence to prove it, but it seems strange you haven’t produced it for all us inferior beings as you implied Christians were even though as you added we are kind and do good deeds but of course not as much as Atheists which you assured us of passionately.

      Do you know Sir Ronald for Born again Christians, God is not a Fairy story we have proof that He does exist because apart from Scripture that many people try to discredit because their minds are in darkness and because of their Pride,  rebellion and sin, we also have no doubt because we see God in Creation and ” Wow is He Reality, an Awesome Reality ” but Evolusionists see Creation as a god and worship it. 

      I wonder what God thinks about those who believe He has wings and a magic wand ? all without proof of course, it seems they are the ones lost in lar lar land. 

      By the way please tell your friend Susan to Google - ” Have they found a cure for Aids yet and what happens when a Babies Mother is infected with Aids after a Bisexual has infected her with it, no doubt it will surprise her after reading what she posted. I guess we can all be mistaken when we trust in our own worldly reason or Logic or someone else’s but of course she will need to check out a few websites as she found out when she kindly helped me prove that they mostly contradict each other, even the ones hailed as having Superior qualifications and knowledge, it seems they can’t even agree and keep changing their mind unless they are just copying what has been claimed before even though there is no real proof, this can happen over and over again. Please assure Susan I understand her confusion, I thought they were all for real once myself but they tell a lot of Fairy Stories only a few have the Truth,  but sadly most don’t want to know it.

      Take Care Sir Ronald and don’t forget to keep your Armour polished it’s getting rusty - Kind regards Anne

    • Brad says:

      05:44pm | 03/06/11

      “but if your Logic is not based on proven facts then it’s a Fairy Story or were you not aware of that.”

      THE IRONY, IT BURNS!!!!!

      As i stated above that you conveniently ignored, you are making the positive claim that god exists, the need for evidence rests solely on the person making the claim, not those rejecting it.

      This is no different from me declaring my pet dragon is real! You can reject my claim as nonsense without any evidence at all, the onus is on me to prove to you, that he does indeed exist.

      ( i think i better say that im using this as a theoretical situation, i really dont have a pet dragon, this is just to stop the inevitable confusion you would undergo )

      So as you are making the positive claim, prove to us god exists… as it is your job, not ours.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:57pm | 03/06/11

      Our Conversation has now ended Brad,  it seems you and the others have no evidence that God does not exist and as you all challenged me first that I was wrong to believe in God it is now up to you   and the others to provide the evidence He doesn’t exist .

      Please read again my other posts…  as I said before I have provided evidence that God is real even if you all ignor and twist it.

      Take Care - I hope and pray that one day you will come to your senses.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:59pm | 03/06/11

      Hi Brad ....“Hi Jake, so you are not a Scientist in that case using your OWN words and logic you do not have educational qualifications to claim expertise on the subject of Aids or anything else”

      Truely the most hipocritical thing you have said yet… you do this ALL THE TIME, yet instead of quoting peer reviewed and widely accepted science, you trott out propaganda and down right lies claiming its the truth.

      ( ( Those were not my words Brad they were Jake’s I was quoting them ))

      “Anyone who can claim there is no God and that He is a fairy story without providing evidence”

      Whoa… WHOA WHOA WHOA…. stop.

      Anyone who makes a positive claim, must provide the evidence to support their claim. That is the basic fundemental of rational discussion and science.
      (( I agree so does this mean thatyou and the others are not positive that there is no God,

      (( I have provided evidence but there was no response from you Brad or Sir Ronald or anyone of your other friends accept abuse, yes Jake who is sadly trusting in his own Logic which is full of holes and not based on God’s Truth also did not offer anything to defend his reasoning accept facts that many believe but have been shown to be in error he also has no understanding of Scripture and depends on what others think which also is not God’s Truth.  So in regards to your Fairy story that says there is no God,  none of you have provided evidence to support this ...So please do. ))

      Also if you all remember I provided a link from a websit who are qualified and highly respected Scientists and leaders in their peer group but you didn’t want to know. 

      “God tells us He inspired all the Scripture, and they are without error.

      ((”I have already answered regarding your claim on another post. ))
      When you provide evidince Brad that you are not deluded in believeing the Lie that there is no God,  we can continue our conversation untill then Brad what you believe and the rest who agree with you is just a dangerous Fairy story and if your not carful the Vanpire who sucks the goodness out of people may leave you empty and forever in despair but sadly he is no Fairy story ,  but I will pray for you all as I know many other Christians are doing , but it is always your choice God never takes away our free will.

      Take Care -  Kind Regards Anne.

    • Brad says:

      08:39pm | 03/06/11

      “I agree so does this mean thatyou and the others are not positive that there is no God”

      I am positive there is no god… let me sum it up, am I positive that there is no flying spaghetti monster, Apollo, Zeus, Ra, god etc… no, there is no evidence to support them, yet I am not omnipotent so knowing that there is no god, flying spaghetti monster, whatever, is impossible. I can be fairly certain that there is no need to evoke anything supernatural to explain anything, so Occam’s razor demands that we don’t.

      “I have provided evidence but there was no response from you Brad or Sir Ronald or anyone of your other friends”

      Oh really? It must have been amazing… so amazing that I haven’t seen anything resembling evidence from you yet.

      “Also if you all remember I provided a link from a websit who are qualified and highly respected Scientists and leaders in their peer group but you didn’t want to know. “

      Which link was this in particular?  U post so many leading to anti-intellectual garbage its hard to keep track…

      “When you provide evidince Brad that you are not deluded in believeing the Lie that there is no God”

      It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove something doesn’t exist, I bet you reject the idea that there is a planet in this universe where there are 60 billion clones of you waging a bloody and violent hand to hand war with other clones of you to the tune of vivaldi’s four seasons…
      You cannot provide evidence that this is NOT possible.  But you must realise that the idea without supporting evidence for the affirmative is downright illogical. This is the EXACT same case for god. Unless positive evidence is presented..(and no you have not presented anything resembling actual evidence, only biased testimony and bronze age writings which are in disrepute..) then it is not logical to hold a belief in god.

      What so many people like you fail to realise is that, the arguments you make against atheists, you would turn around and make yourself to gods for which you hold no belief.  You are one of thousands of religions with a belief in tens of thousands of gods throughout human history… yet you are so sure your choice is the right one and all others are wrong. Do you not understand how insane that is?  I am only denying one god more than you… and yet you mock…

      The only reason your religion is so prevalent, is that it happened to be on the side with the strongest army. Millions had to die, so that your religion could cut a bloody path through the world,  all in the name of more power for men. It could have just as easily been the greeks who ruled the world, then we would be having this discussion about Apollo… If Constantine was defeated during the roman civil war, then I would be here arguing with pagans…

    • Brad says:

      08:41pm | 03/06/11

      Sorry - made a typo that i just noticed raspberry I am not positive… first paragraph.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:34am | 04/06/11

      Hi WilliamK I just what to thank you and commend you on what you shared in answer to those who were denying that our Awesome God is a reality without proof, as we know some of Evolution teaching does agree with Creation findings but this means it is supporting it instead of proving it is in error but sadly they can’t see this, but I will continue to pray they do .

      Having been deceived by Evolution for many years after it was taught to me at School and strongly denying there was a God at least in words because of my hurt and anger but then later after examining both the evidence of Creation and the unproven ones of Evolution it was very humbling to realise what a fool I had been.

      I have been given many links from the others who claim I don’t know what Evolution promotes,  I chose not to argue with them about Evolution but focus on the Truth of Creation hoping they would take the time to search more and come to realise as I had that Creation is proven to be True not by man but by God but then as the Scriptures tell us ....


      Romans 1:19-21 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


      A few also asked Theological questions but sadly as I found out only seeking to discredit what I believed and although Jake denies I was abused as were other Christians and that God was mocked which hurts all those who Love Him, if you read previous posts both with this Topic and others you will find it is True.


      Over the years having studied both sides I find it incredibly hard to believe how I could have claimed that God does not exist and that everything evolved from nothing, but such is worldly man’s Logic as you explained, thank you for doing so and for sharing your Godly wisdom. If you have not had a chance to read articles from Creation Ministries I found them to be very helpful. http://creation.com/


      God bless you greatly William in your contending with Him - Christian Love Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:23am | 04/06/11

      Dear Jake and Brad it seems you and the others have no evidence that God does not exist and as you all challenged me first that I was wrong to believe in God it is now up to you and the others to provide the evidence that He doesn’t exist .


      Please read again my other posts…  as I said before I have provided evidence that God is real even if you ignor and twist it.


      We all have free choice Jake if you are really interested in knowing more read my other posts on previous topics but you need to have a Teachable spirit and not reject what you don’t understand at this time,  I asked God to help me understand and He did,  I really feel although your words are foolish and you are confused by teaching that is in error,  you are still seeking Truth.

      A word from God…

      Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. 

      Proverbs 12:15 The way of fools are right in their own eyes: but they that listen to Godly counsel are wise.
      Take Care - I hope and pray that one day you will all come to your senses as I did…  yes I was very foolish but God rescued me.
      Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      09:10pm | 05/06/11

      “We all have free choice Jake if you are really interested in knowing more read my other posts on previous topics but you need to have a Teachable spirit and not reject what you don’t understand at this time”

      Follow your own advice Anne…

      You do not understand evolution, yet you reject it.

      You do not understand the big bang theory, and yet you reject it.

      Without giving it a second thought, you reject multitudes of things you don’t understand because you decided in advance that they were in opposition to what you already believe.

      You aren’t seeking truth, you’re just seeking support.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      11:55am | 04/06/11

      I think the mental health board of Australia will be reviewing their policy of letting their customers (inmates/lunatics) have access to the internet and computers after they read what they are posting here.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:12am | 05/06/11

      But we would miss you Sir Ronald ... watch that Armour rust can eat right through and really spoil the reflection as well as leave you without Protection ... just joking…  but then it’s .funny how jokes can sometimes leave you feeling like you have just been punched… that’s because you have,  some are very cruel and cause a lot of rust. 

      I can’t help but like you Sir Ronald you amuse me. Take Care.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:46pm | 04/06/11

      Brad says Sorry - made a typo that i just noticed I am not positive… first paragraph.


      Good to hear you are not positive Brad that there is no God at least according to Scripture this means you are not a fool in your heart, just a fool in your thinking,  which believe me I was also for many years believing in the imaginary god of Evolution and depending on it for all the answers, how very much I was deceived and fearful because I knew something just did not add up,  I thank God now for those doubts they made me search for answers and I found them but first I found God which meant I understood them.. He does Love you Brad much more then you can imagine I hope one Day you will come to realise that.

      You said Brad…” There are 60 billion Clones of you waging a bloody and violent hand to hand war with other clones of you to the tune of vivaldi’s four seasons… You cannot provide evidence that this is NOT possible.”

      These facts Brad I have known for many years but I checked again and found little has changed. To Clone you must start with a live embryo or cell so how did this originate? also they have found that Cloned animals who do survive can’t reproduce naturally if not produced by artificial insemination, nor is their life expectancy as long as naturally conceived animals.

      Brad using your own reasoning how long do you think it would take Scientists to produce 60 Billion Clones one by one and keep producing them if they were killed in battle ? or can’t the Clones your talking about die and if so how is this possible? and if it is possible why fight if they can’t kill each other and so on…..

      I did look up the Internet Brad and found contradictions with those who promote Cloning and one also contradicted themselves and as usual a lot of websites that just copy what others say without knowing much about Cloning themselves,  but this did not surprise me it is much the same with any topic. I did find a few websites that warned of the dangers of Cloning animals and have posted some of their comments below, please feel free to follow up if you want to..

      Also as we know it is against the Law world wide to Clone Humans so even if it were possible to Clone 60 billion,  you would be breaking the Law and my Logic tells me it would be very hard to keep them under wraps so no one would dob you into the Police. But Brad do you really want 60 billion Clones of you waging a bloody and violent hand to hand war with other Clones of you? and for what reason perhaps they have no place to live… no doubt it would be population explosion for sure especially if they couldn’t die, we may even find them on our shore,  it would be a worry with all those boat people as well to feed or don’t they eat?  Sorry Brad… it’s all very much a Fairy Story, you must agree if you don’t ... Think again!
       
      Cloning is an incredibly inefficient technology that results in a tremendous loss of animal life. From grossly oversized heads, twisted limbs, and bloated fetuses to malformed kidneys, immune system deficiencies, and respiratory distress, cloned animals and their surrogate mothers suffer from any of a variety of severe health problems, abnormalities, and deformities that are seen only rarely otherwise. http://www.endanimalcloning.org/animalwelfare.shtml

      Points against Animal Cloning In a large percentage of cases, the cloning process fails in the course of pregnancy or some sort of birth defects occur, for example, as in a recent case, a calf born with two faces. Sometimes the defects manifest themselves later and kill the Clone.  ( This comment Brad was from one promoting Cloning so sad.)

      Apart from all that Brad I do not believe in trying to play God it’s dangerous and impossiable to achieve..  Take Care - Kind regards Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:39pm | 04/06/11

      Hi Jake as you can see I have changed my mind about ending our Conversation the same as with Brad, to explain why would only confuse you more seeing you don’t believe in a personal God like I do or any god except the god of Evolution. I realise you may be angry with me going by some of your messages so perhaps your not so sure of what you claim to be True but this could be positive not negative. You have a good mind in regard to analysing information you receive and this is a gift from God but sadly you have the wrong focus at this time so it can’t be used by Him for good.

      I do find it strange Jake though that to support your case when you want to try to show that I’m in error you confirm it by quoting Christians, do you realise like me they believe in a God you reject even if some are also confused by false teaching the same as you are and I was. So please explain why you Trust what they say if you think they are delusional or at least badly informed. In regard to Christians believing in Evolution it demonstrates that they also do not understand Creation fully or do not take the Bible literally this is very sad Jake because God Himself said ....

      2 Timothy 3:15-17 ... And that from a Child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


      I use the K.J.V because it has no copyright and I like Old English Script ...and I’m not sure if you know but unless stated otherwise,  man in the Scriptures means mankind the same as brotherhood of believers etc

      As you can see Jake Christians who doubt God’s Truth will not Mature in Christ Jesus they will remain babies without understanding of the Scriptures and your right there are many like this even those who claim great knowledge or have a high profile but there are many more who do believe in God’s Truth including Creation without Evolution and some who are just not sure either way but are seeking As I shared because of what I was taught at School it took many years before I came to know the Truth but once I did I had no doubts because I knew God does not lie… Like you I’m very Analytical even though I’m Dyslectic, you may have noticed with my spelling, punctuation etc I was 12 before I could read or write but with constant reading and elocution classes I soon caught up and have never lost my love of reading, but interestingly I still can’t write fluently unless lead by the Lord accept for basic messages etc but with the Computer it has been easier to correct mistakes… I am indeed a cracked vessel… if you want to, ask your wife what that means.


      There are also Cults who propagate false teaching and they sound convincing and unless you knew the Scriptures you could be deceived sadly many are. They pay big buks to advertise on the Internet and can be found on most websites even some Christen ones who have Google ads they have confused many Christians the same as those who do counterfeit Miracles and signs and wonders, they are tricks with the power to deceive and many are but thankfully God can bring good from evil but He does not do evil to bring good from it, the Scripture tells us this is slander. 

      I’m sorry Jake I didn’t respond to some of your posts, I must have scrolled past them, anyway I can’t answer all your statements in one post and I do have other things to do so sometimes my time is limited, but I will respond to some more of your questions in the near future. Take Care - Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      03:38pm | 05/06/11

      “Hi Jake as you can see I have changed my mind about ending our Conversation… to explain why… [blah blah]”

      That’s great Anne. Not interested.

      “I do find it strange Jake though that to support your case when you want to try to show that I’m in error you confirm it by quoting Christians… So please explain why you Trust what they say if you think they are delusional or at least badly informed.”

      Ugh… Anne, get your head out of the clouds. I don’t trust what they say and I don’t quote scripture to support my case. You argued that your interpretation of a passage was correct. I pointed out that there were many other interpretations. You know this is the case, Anne, and I don’t care for your childish insinuation that deep down, I really believe the bible is packed with useful advice. Grow up.

      I’ll make it all very simple for you Anne. Read this next paragraph slowly to make sure you understand it because it’s the simplest way I could come up with to phrase it.

      You don’t understand AIDS or the biological processes behind it. You don’t understand the basic principles of evolution. You do not understand the simple premise of the big bang theory.

      You have made it abundantly clear that you have less than a high-school understanding of any of these things. However, you profess enough knowledge of each of them to be able to undermine the scientific research in their favour.

      I don’t care what you believe. I don’t ridicule you for being a believer and I don’t think that believing in god makes you stupid. I do, however, know for a fact that you have posted opinions and claimed them to be fact without also posting evidence to support them. I have pulled you up a number of times and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that doesn’t have the academic value of toilet paper. Yet despite this, you continue to refuse to accept that your opinions are nothing but your own. You continue to claim that there is a controversy among scientists about the causes of AIDS. You continue to claim that the bible clearly describes DNA and AIDS when even a 4 year old could see, from the quotes that you yourself provided, that it doesn’t.

      That is why you are are a liar Anne. Because you have been shown objectively to be spreading misinformation but you continue to do it. I’m not sure how you justify it to yourself and I don’t really care, but I know that the kind of intellectual dishonesty that you’re displaying here is exactly the reason people don’t respect your opinions.

      It’s the reason you’re constantly reduced to posting quotes from the bible - because when you attempt to post facts that can be verified by others, your argument collapses in a heap. So you run and hind behind some nebulous verse which could be interpreted in a million different ways and use your interpretation as proof that you’re correct.

      You’ll never learn anything because you refuse to accept you could be wrong. You *think* you’re refusing to accept that God could be wrong, but in reality it’s only your personal interpretation of the bible that you’re defending, not God. Until you’re willing to accept that you might be wrong about what you believe, you’ll always be stuck in the religious dark ages with the folks who think they can predict the end of the world or the ones who think God tells them to blow up buildings.

      “Dear Jake and Brad it seems you and the others have no evidence that God does not exist and as you all challenged me first that I was wrong to believe in God it is now up to you and the others to provide the evidence that He doesn’t exist.”

      No Anne, that’s not how it works. For starters, nobody challenged you to prove god existed - you just made that up in your head so you could convince yourself that you’re being persecuted for your beliefs. Several people explained you how why it is a logical impossibility to disprove the existence of something like god because the parameters for it’s existence aren’t known. Hence the reason I asked you to prove to me that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. I think we can all agree that Santa doesn’t exist can’t we Anne? So if you don’t believe in him, can you prove to me that he isn’t real? If you can do that, I’ll do the same for god. Deal?

    • Jake says:

      03:39pm | 05/06/11

      “Over the years having studied both sides I find it incredibly hard to believe how I could have claimed that God does not exist and that everything evolved from nothing, but such is worldly man’s Logic as you explained”

      Anne, this sentence is possibly the stupidest thing you’ve posted to-date - and that’s saying something. You claim to have studied “both sides” and in the same sentence, you make it clear that you’ve never studied evolution since you completely misrepresent it’s basic premise. Evolution does not claim that anything came from nothing. You’ve been corrected on this multiple times but you continue to state it. Are you afraid that if you actually told the truth about what evolution claims that it might make sense and cause you to question your opinion?

      I’ll say it again. The only person in this argument claiming anything came from nothing is you, Anne. You claim that god made the universe instantly out of nothing. Evolution does not make this claim. Abiogensis does not make this claim. The big bang theory does not make this claim. *You* are the only person making this claim and yet you’re the one criticizing it the loudest. Figure that one out for yourself.

      You have not investigated both sides. I’m willing to bet that I have done far, far more investigation into religion that you will ever do into science.  Once again you claim to be knowledgeable enough to make a reasoned decision into the merits of scientific theories, when it’s clear you know little more than their names and what you were spoon fed at church.

      Your lack of integrity and honesty is nothing short of astounding.

      You’ve tried erecting strawmen by claiming evolution and big bang theory promote ideas that they don’t promote:

      “if so please explain and prove how life started from nothing”

      You’ve tried questioning my qualifications when I’ve not once sourced my own opinion as evidence:

      “so you are not a Scientist in that case using your OWN words and logic you do not have educational qualifications to claim expertise on the subject of Aids or anything else”

      You’ve tried misrepresenting my statements by putting words in my mouth, claiming I said things I didn’t say:

      “Sorry but I guess I was giving you the benefit of a doubt seeing you were claiming far superior knowledge then I have”

      You’ve trotted out ideas which were thoroughly debunked decades ago and refused to accept the evidence showing as much:

      “Medically we are now aware that Aids comes from Bacteria in the Male rectum”

      You’ve claimed persecution for your beliefs when there was none:

      “Jake just in case you are not aware, I have been abused, ridiculed, slandered and made fun of for believing in God and His Truth”

      You’ve tried every trick in the dishonest debating handbook and you just keep pulling them out. Initially I’d assumed you probably weren’t aware that you were doing it but it seems clear enough to me now that you’re not in the slightest bit interested in being honest. You’re only interested in refusing to accept you’re wrong.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:10pm | 04/06/11

      Brad I believe this was your coment ...


      Many different scientists have done peer reviewed studies and virtual experiments mapping out the universe from the big bang if the laws of physics were purely random.  Fred Adams has shown that of this random beginning, 25% of such random permutations   would result in a universe quite similar to our own, capable of producing stars… which are all that is required to produce higher elements required for life.

      Permutations means… The act of changing the arrangement of a given number of Elements.

      Brad could you please explain to me where the Elements come from in the first place ?

      Thanking you in advance - Anne

    • Brad says:

      09:32pm | 04/06/11

      Anne,  you are completely ignorant of logic…

      Detail for me, how you could possibly provide evidence to disprove that pink unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe and i will use the same logic to disprove your god…

      Dont keep skipping this as its really making you look like a typical creationist, running from questions she cannot answer.

      And as for proof?... I have re-read your posts and see nothing resembling evidence… There is a lot of conjecture, bible references, personal testimony yet none of it is valid evidence for god.. Where is the tangible proof or the irrefutable logic? Where is the real world evidence, that would satisfy science, that your god exists?

    • Brad says:

      02:19am | 05/06/11

      “Good to hear you are not positive Brad that there is no God at least according to Scripture this means you are not a fool in your heart, just a fool in your thinking”

      What does that saying go… “I deny the holy spirit”... well that… I have no issue denying the holy spirit, that means that i cant goto heaven now according to the bible, thats the only unforgivable…

      The reason i stated that I am not positive as you clearly did not read completely and nor understand at all, is that I am not positive there is no god, this is a product of my humanity. I lack omnipresence and omnipotence which are clearly required to say that I am positive there is no god. Am i 99.999999% convinced there is no god? Absolutely!

      “imaginary god of Evolution and depending on it for all the answers”

      What a hopeless attempt at belittling a single scientific field. Evolution is one field of study, it is not a god, it does not hold all answers for all life, only answers to do with how life came to be in its present state. Maybe if you knew anything about it instead of just lying about it, you would understand how silly you sound when you say blindly ignorant things like that.

      “I thank God now for those doubts they made me search for answers and I found them but first I found God which meant I understood them..”

      Answers? goddidit is not an answer, it is an excuse for being too lazy to find the real answers… If everyone took your approach to knowledge we would be stuck in the dark ages quite literally.

      “These facts Brad I have known for many years but I checked again and found little has changed. To Clone you must start with a live embryo or cell so how did this originate?”

      Wow… im blown away… how insane are you? You took a metaphor for the impossibility of proving a negative state of existance and took it literally.

      Regardless of god, religion, everything, I cannot fathom that cloning is what you started to rant about for SEVEN PARAGRAPHS based on a metaphor… wow… im taken aback by the stupidity… In all my years I have never met even children who have such a loose grasp of reality.

      Dont bother replying… i wont be reading it… this is not a sign of me giving up, it is one of realising that I cannot hold a rational conversation with the certifiably insane. You need help that even your god cannot provide… but modern medicine can.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:39am | 05/06/11

      Thank you ,  Here we go again blame someone else!

      So True what you say… it’s the big cop out,  let’s blame someone else maybe nobody will notice our part in all this mess or perhaps we can debunk it with Science and so surround the real issue till it’s moderated out, of course putting them down , calling them names and telling them their stupid or mad sure packs a punch,  but then we could also throw in a few jokes and rubbish them, having a laugh at others expense always brings a chuckle, after all they should be able to a laugh at themselves,  yer I know I’m laughing at them but what’s the difference as long as no one points the finger at me and it keeps them off my back and…. so on and on…..

      I wonder if they find it as amusing when the shoe or glove is on the other foot or hand .... Treat others how you would like to be treated.

      Good on you - Here we go again   ...for bringing it back to what it is really all about,  yes God’s Truth will be twisted but sin will always be the reason why there is evil in the world and it will remain so until Jesus Christ returns… Satan’s power is in lies and deception and in this way many even some Christians have lost sight of God’s Truth but it always will remain in the hearts of those who Love and know Him and because they do…  they choose to obey Him and they can because they have His empowering… He has set them free from the bondage of sin so they are no loner slaves to it….

      God will have the Final Victory of this we can be very sure…

      He tells us in… 1 Corinthians 15:23-25 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under his feet.

      Take Care - Christian Love Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:01am | 05/06/11

      I chose to reply Brad that’s my right besides I care about you.

      You said…..It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove something doesn’t exist, I bet you reject the idea that there is a planet in this universe where there are 60 billion clones of you waging a bloody and violent hand to hand war with other clones of you to the tune of vivaldi’s four seasons… You cannot provide evidence that this is NOT possible. 

      Don’t be such a bad looser Brad and grow up… Fairy Stories by the way don’t always have a happy ending it depends on who makes them up.

      By the way Denying the Holy Spirit is not something done in a few words it’s over a lifetime.

      Take Care I will be praying for you - Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      04:13pm | 05/06/11

      “I bet you reject the idea that there is a planet in this universe where there are 60 billion clones of you waging a bloody and violent hand to hand war with other clones of you to the tune of vivaldi’s four seasons… You cannot provide evidence that this is NOT possible.”

      Well… Is this meant to be a reference to earth? If it is then it should be 7 billion, not 60. I’m genuinely not sure what you’re getting at so I’ll move forward assuming you mean earth.

      If I’ve understood your example to be a reference to earth, then you’re asking a very different question here. We can conclusively prove that this planet DOES exist, because we can observe it. If I rephrased the question as follows, you’ll see the proof becomes pretty much impossible:

      Can you *disprove* the existence of a planet other than earth, somewhere in the universe, which has 60 billion clones of The Fonz from Happy Days jumping motorbikes over billions of sharks to the tune of Jingle Bells?

      Conclusively disproving the existence of my hypothesised planet would require you to inspect every single planet in the universe to prove it wasn’t mine. Even then, I could argue that the Fonzie civilisation died out before you got there to see them.

      The ability to prove the non-existence of a given object is contingent of a full understanding of every property of that object, or at-least enough properties that definitive statements can be independently tested.

      For example: If we were to define a thing which had at-least the following properties:

      1. It is a red ball, 2cm in diameter
      2. It is always visible to an observer
      3. It is found inside every coffee cup

      Then I could disprove its existence because if I look inside a coffee cup and do not see a red ball, then the object described must not exist. Either that or the description of it’s properties must be incorrect.

      However in real-life, we rarely know the properties of an object so definitively. We know that Possums live in trees and come out at night, but it you go outside at night and don’t see one, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. However if you go out and you do see one, then it’s existence has been easily proven to the observer.

      This is why, when we are referring to real-life things, the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming that something DOES exist, not the person claiming it doesn’t.

      (More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Gods)

      If you thought about my Santa Claus example for a few seconds you’d realise why. What proof is there that Santa doesn’t exist?

      1. A grown man couldn’t fit down a chimney.
      A: He’s magical

      2. Nobody could attend to every household on the planet on a single evening.
      A. He’s magical

      3. Reindeer can’t fly.
      A. They’re magical.

      4. Nobody has even seen him
      A. He can make himself invisible (after all, he’s magical)

      and so on…

      The parameters for Santa Claus are mostly indeterminate because we have never had a live Santa Claus to study. As such, we could never hope to provide conclusive proof against his existence.

      It would be relatively easy to prove that he does exist (assuming of course that he does). Someone simply needs to observe and record him doing something which is unique to him (i.e. teleporting down chimneys, flying reindeer, etc). This would then open the field up to scientific investigation and a real discussion could be had. But until he can be observed, it doesn’t make much sense to assume that Santa exists, does it?

      The same goes for god. There are a multitude reason I could provide to doubt the existence of god, but there is no definitive proof I could provide because there is no definitive understanding of what a god is or does. Even Christians can’t agree on the exact nature of god so how are we supposed to disprove it?

      So that is why I am asking you, Anne. Can you disprove the existence of Santa? The Easter Bunny? The Tooth Fairy? If you can disprove the existence of any of these things to me, then I will disprove God to you.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      12:57pm | 05/06/11

      @Brad…here is a tip you cant make a zealot see reason, unfortunately their minds arent wired correctly to try and put across a point of veiw to a christian zealot is like trying to get osama bin laden to eat a pork and grazy roll with chips. Just look at some of the religious zealots in history, David Koresh (Waco) jonestown, and numerous others.
      You and I look at something and say if it doesnt exist it doesnt exist, whereas a zealot (lunatic) looks at it and says if it doesnt exist then prove to me that it doesnt exist or i will believe that it does exist.  There is no logic to the wiring pattern in their brainwashed little minds so just humour them and listen to their rants and then move on to important stuff.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      04:13pm | 05/06/11

      Hi Brad - Pink Unicorns depict Atheism represented by a a female god  

      But there were real Unicorns they were wild bulls,  so sorry they did exist but they weren’t pink so I can’t prove they were,  but if you want to paint them Pink it is your choice…

      In a way that is what Evolution has tried to do to God but he has paint remover and it will remove all the lies and only Creation will be left.

      Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an Unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

      All Truth Brad has evidence nothing comes from nothing Evolution is a lie you are Deceived…  So explain again where did the elements that Evolution claim was the begining of the world come from ?  I must have missed it .

      As for our friend Sir Ronald .... he is a real crack up don’t you think - Ha Ha say hello for me.

      Kind regards - Anne

    • Jake says:

      12:41pm | 06/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      “So explain again where did the elements that Evolution claim was the begining of the world come from”

      For goodness sake Anne, do you never read replies? How many times do I - and others - need to tell you that evolution does not deal in any way shape or form with how life first emerged or how the earth began, before you will stop saying that it does?

      Do you not realise how ludicrously foolish it makes you sound when you claim we are all deceived if we believe in evolution, but you can’t even correctly identify what evolution is?! It’s the equivalent of me saying that the bible doesn’t make sense because there’s no such thing as radioactive spiders.

      Anne, evolution does not describe in any way shape or form how life on earth emerged, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      Again: Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      One more time: Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      Last time I promise: Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      Ok I lied, one more time: Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      Now Anne… I have two questions.

      1. Does evolution describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements?

      2. If not, what does it describe?

      Please oh please answer correctly!

      With that out of the way, the origin of the elements is fairly well understood. I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that it is some kind of mystery and therefor, can only be explained by God, but if you ever tried to answer your own questions for a change rather than expecting strangers on the internet to do it for you, then you’d know that isn’t the case. Seriously, if you just google “origin of elements”, any link on the first page of results would have answerd your question. This from a person who claims to have investigated “both sides”. Pfft.

      Here’s my tremendously over-simplified description of the process. Note, that while I’ve not detailed the exact processes behind every step of this (as it would take thousands of words to do so), the science has strong and well-tested foundations. I suggest you read the links further down for a more thorough explanation. To be clear, none of the information below was created/researched/theorised by me. Links to sources and research supporting this model can be found in the references at the wikipedia link below.

      The lightest elements like Hydrogen and Helium formed as high-energy plasma cooled and coalesced around 400,000 years after the big bang (I know you understand or don’t believe in it, but if you want the scientific view, you don’t get much of a choice). The background energy present at the time was not sufficient to fuse elements much heavier than Helium.

      As these lighter elements began to clump together under the mutual influence of gravity, very dense clouds of Hydrogen and Helium isotopes formed and a little less than a billion years after the big bang, the first stars ignited.

      The immense pressure and temperature inside these stars resulted in self-sustaining fusion (the same process we see in our own sun today). When light nuclei undergo fusion, the result is the formation of heavier nuclei, as seen in our own sun and in laboratory experiments. These oldest stars created the first heavy elements in the universe. These new elements combined with Hydrogen and Helium to produce new types of stars which, in-turn, produced different heavy particles, allowing for new types of stars and so on.

      When we look at the make-up of different stars using spectroscopy, we can see that older stars have less heavy elements, while younger ones have more, as we would expect from the above model.

      Most basic elements known today can be produced by the fusion occurring within stars. So as far as science is concerned, to quote the wonderful Carl Sagan, “We are all star stuff”.

      If you’re interested in understanding these processes - which I haven’t the slightest doubt that you’re not (but maybe someone else reading is) - I suggest you start with these links:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
      http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/10/0.html

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:19pm | 05/06/11

      Hi Jake good to hear from you, just a short post this time but will get back to you about Santa Claus… in regards to Brad’s Statement below,  not mine,  ask him, but it’s impossible anyway as I explained but he took it badly… still 60 billion of me would be a bit hard to take don’t you think ??? .... oh well it’s an early night for me and an early morning and thankfully I have no doubt there is a bed but would you like more proof… Take Care Anne

      I bet you reject the idea that there is a planet in this universe where there are 60 billion clones of you waging a bloody and violent hand to hand war with other clones of you to the tune of vivaldi’s four seasons… You cannot provide evidence that this is NOT possible .... (( I did and it’s not possible besides I wouldn’t give anyone one a live cell of mine to play with. ))

    • Jake says:

      11:11am | 06/06/11

      I see… I didn’t see the post you were replying to. In that case, Brad’s question is much the same as my question about the Fonzie planet. He has posited the hypothesis that such a planet exists and you have, quite rightly, said that it is an absurd premise.

      However the question is can you prove that Brad’s clone planet or that my Fonzie planet don’t exist? We’re all in agreement that you would be a fool to believe in them because they breach every known law of nature (much as God does), but I’ll bet you can’t give me proof that they don’t exist.

      That being the case, why do you choose not to believe in the clone planet or the Fonzie planet, despite the fact you can’t disprove them, but you defend your believe in God because we can’t disprove his/her/its existence?

      The point Brad and I are both making is that an inability to disprove something which logically cannot be disproved does not lend any credibility to it.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      07:44am | 06/06/11

      @Jake…. when I said @Brad i meant @Jake greta posts mate and the do make sense, unlike some other posts from the twilight zone/fringe of sanity.

    • Jake says:

      12:45pm | 06/06/11

      @sir ronald bradnam
      Cheers. This is a conversation I feel like I’ve had a thousand times…

      I’m just glad to see there are some other folks here willing to debunk the nonsense being spouted by people who don’t understand the first thing about the theories they decry.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      03:18pm | 06/06/11

      @Jake
      I know it doesnt matter how many times you show a zealot the lack of evidence of a god whether he carries a lighting bolt, has a long white beard, has snakes for hair or doesnt like pigs it makes no difference they somehow see the lack of evidence as unarguable evidence that he exists.
      I cant sit by and let them spout their mantra about this omnipresent supernatural dictator without pointing out that it is bullshit.

    • Ray says:

      09:16am | 06/06/11

      Michael Kirby should wake up to the fact that condom use results in a failure rate of about 20% due to misuse and leakage.  Hence condom use, compared with abstinence,  leads to receptive partners incurring a one in five chance of a death sentence by way of HIV/aids.

      After all,  would he be prepared to fly on a plane from Sydney to Melbourne if there is a one in five chance of the plane crashing.

    • Jake says:

      10:51am | 06/06/11

      “20% due to misuse and leakage”

      While I don’t know if your figures are actually correct since you didn’t reference them, this is exactly the reason we should be concentrating on educating people how to use condoms. When used properly, condoms have a miniscule failure rate, but as long as we continue burying our heads in the sand in the hope that humans will magically overcome the primal drive to have sex, they will continue to fail and a simple mitigating factor will go begging.

      Absolutely, having sex with fewer partners will reduce risk and that should indeed be another aspect of education, but if there are two ways to significantly reduce a risk, why ignore one?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:17am | 06/06/11

      Hi Jake and Brad,  if you don’t mind can we take time out from our debate or conversation as Punch calls it,  I would like to ask you a favour if that’s OK, as you know I have already shared my Story on other posts but I was wondering if you would mind sharing how you came to believe that there was no God and why and how old you were but only if you want to,  please feel free not to explain,  I will understand it may be personal to you.

      Thanking you Anne.

    • Jake says:

      11:05am | 06/06/11

      No Anne… As I said, I have no interest in your beliefs, nor do I have any interest in sharing mine with you.

      Given the lack of integrity you’ve shown thus far, I can only imagine you’d attempt to twist and misconstrue anything I would say in an attempt to support your absurd opinions - as you’ve already tried to do several times.

      My concern here, as it has been from the beginning, is ensuring that you, and anyone else reading, know that your opinions are based on nothing but your own imagination and are in no way supported by the slightest knowledge of the subjects you claim to understand.

      You don’t understand biology but claim that AIDS is bacterial in nature and unrelated to HIV - a theory thoroughly debunked over a decade ago.

      You don’t understand Evolution but claim that it is bogus because life can’t just appear spontaneously - a subject not even addressed by evolution.

      You don’t understand big bang theory but claim it is bogus because everything can’t come from nothing - an assertion that the theory doesn’t make.

      Until you’re willing to admit your ignorance of these subjects or submit valid evidence of your claims, I’m not in the slightest bit interested in a personal discussion with you about your beliefs.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      01:12pm | 06/06/11

      It is always your choice Jake,  if you do or don’t what to share I do understand,  I have at times found it very hard to share how I really feel, Humour was my way out and I am known for my wit but sometimes I wished I had been able to drop the mask and be real but when I tried there were some that didn’t understand and pushed me away,  so I found it less hurtful to put the mask back on… but it was heavy.

      I think I had taken on board the saying Laugh and the world Laughs with you cry and you cry alone and I believed this was true and for some it may be but when I became a Born again Christian I found no matter what Storm I’m going through in my life the Lord is always with me strengthen and comforting me.

      Anyway Jake I’m sorry if I hurt you and did not show you the respect I should have but I was hurting too… I Love my Lord greatly perhaps in some ways like you love your wife and Children ? and it hurts to hear Him being put down and made fun of or denied and also my Christian family regardless of where they are at in their walk with the Lord… God as 3 in One has always shown great kindness and Love to me in so many ways some Miraculous and even when I claimed He did not exist and made fun of those who did believe in Him and even when I hurt Him , He never gave up on me and I know He never will.

      I will respond to your other post later Jake I haven’t had time yet to read it fully but I will,  I’m also having a conversation with others on different topics so it keeps me busy but I will post again in reference to your questions.

      Take Care Kind regards Anne…. I"m thankful that our lives touched.

    • Jake says:

      04:22pm | 06/06/11

      Anne… Let me save you a lot of unnecessary typing. I don’t care about your history or how you came to be Christian. It is both irrelevant and boring.

      Don’t take my lack of interest in your no-doubt *riveting* tale to mean that you have hurt my feelings. I care as much about what you think of me as I would Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff or any other bile-spewing dimwit who holds their beliefs above their own integrity.

      I’m not sure what you think is going on here Anne. Make no mistake, I haven’t the slightest amount of respect for you because you have repeatedly proven yourself to be blatantly dishonest and instead of admitting your mistakes, you simply attempt to cover them up with more dishonesty and double-talk.

      You represent what I consider to be one of the fundamental problems we as a society face today and the only reason I continue to invest the time I do into this “conversation”, is because the thought that someone might read your drivel and think that there was an ounce of truth to it makes my blood boil.

      I’m not at all happy that our “lives touched”, however I am glad to see that people like @Brad and @sir ronald bradnam are taking the challenge to people like you and dissecting your misinformation for all to see.

      Spare me your life’s story Anne. As I said before, I don’t care.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:27pm | 06/06/11

      Hi Jake in refrence to your statment below * it may help if you read my post to Brad,  I did prove it was impossiable as you will see if you read it in detail, it may also answer a few on your concerns too. 

      * I see… I didn’t see the post you were replying to. In that case, Brad’s question is much the same as my question about the Fonzie planet. He has posited the hypothesis that such a planet exists and you have, quite rightly, said that it is an absurd premise.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      03:45pm | 06/06/11

      No Anne… You didn’t come close to proving that the clone planet doesn’t exist. To paraphrase you (and please correct me if I have misunderstood your assertions), your reasoning was:

      1. Cloning is really hard and scientists have not been able to do it reliably
      2. Clones have a short life expectancy due to their inherent problems
      3. You would never allow someone to clone you

      If you think this is a proof then disproving God will be a piece of cake! But let me address your logic first.

      1 & 2. Human scientists have, thus far, had lots of trouble producing viable clones. However this is not necessarily the case for alien scientists - who would presumably be the ones responsible since we’re yet to send people to other planets. So stating that human scientists aren’t very good at cloning doesn’t disprove anything.

      3. You don’t need to give permission for an advanced alien race to take a sample of your DNA. I mean if they’re really advanced, they could probably just take a tissue sample by beaming it up or something like on Star Trek. Or take it from your hair-brush. There’s no way your imperfect human mind could comprehend the abilities of highly advanced aliens.

      See it’s pretty easy to dismiss evidence of something not existing isn’t it Anne?

      Pointing out how unlikely the scenario is unnecessary Anne. We’re all in agreement that it’s unlikely. What we asked is can you prove it? I can point out the same unlikelihoods about God couldn’t I?

      After all, if we follows the literal interpretation of the bible, God can create energy and matter from nothing - a breach of the second law of thermodynamics, one of the lynch-pins of our universe.

      By knowing all things before they happen, God is not subject to causality, another massive problem for the integrity of the universe.

      These two factors alone make the premise of an Omnipotent God ludicrously unlikely (or as we understand it, scientifically impossible). Even more unlikely than a clone planet - at-least the clone planet could, in theory, be possible. But I’m guessing you won’t accept this as proof that God doesn’t exist.

      So I’ll ask again, can you *prove* to me that the clone planet, or the Fonzie planet, or Santa Clause don’t exist? I’m not interested in you showing me how unlikely they are because we already agree they they are unlikely. Much as your all-powerful being who is not subject to the laws of physics is unlikely. I want proof that they don’t exist.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:14pm | 06/06/11

      Why so angry Jake, I have not shared anything with you that has been untrue why would I…  it’s only untrue as you see it with your perception, Logic and reasoning,  the same as those who also believe in Evolution.

      Time will tell who has the Truth, I don’t intend to argue with you or anyone else,  I continued to share before for a few reasons, one was because you where demanding answers, sorry I can’t give you them all right now as I said I’m still learning and the ones I shared you rejected anyway because they didn’t agree with your understanding of Evolution,  so what’s the point of continuing. I know without a Doubt that God is real He is Love and can do no evil.

      I also have appreciated those faithful Christians regardless of where they are in their walk with the Lord or their understanding,  who have stood up for God’s Truth even though like me they were abused by the rest of you and I intend sharing some more with them in the near future.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne..

    • Jake says:

      08:57am | 07/06/11

      Oh I’m not angry Anne. I just wanted to make it clear to you that I have no interest in personal discussions with you about my beliefs etc. My interest here is addressing your misinformation, nothing more.

      So given your admission that you don’t have the answers, why do you speak as though you do know them? You once again imply that evolution is wrong, despite the fact you don’t understand it. It isn’t an issue that you don’t know the answers. Nobody knows all the answers. The problem is when people who don’t know the answers claim that they do.

      I don’t claim to understand your god. Where do you get off claiming to understand science when it’s plainly obvious you don’t?

      You attack evolution by saying it can’t explain life coming from nothing, but it doesn’t even say that. It’s the equivalent of me saying that I don’t believe in God because the bible says the moon is made of cheese.

      Would you consider me to be an honest person if, despite being told multiple times that the bible doesn’t say the moon is made of cheese, I continued to claim it anyway?

      An honest person in your position would simply admit that they don’t know enough about evolution to know whether it has any scientific merit or not. If you don’t even know what the theory is about, then how do you feel qualified to say it’s wrong? It’s like critiquing a movie you’ve never seen!

      It’s a hard thing to admit when you don’t know the answers but it’s the backbone of our ability to learn. I suggest you start trying to get comfortable with the idea because as long as you decide in advance that you know the answers before you spend the time to truly understand them, you’ll always be stuck with a flawed understanding of the world around you.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:20am | 07/06/11

      I’m not surprised Jake you believe in Aliens from Outer Space many who do not know the God of the Bible do so, but I’m not going to argue with you about them but share God’s Truth in regards to Aliens, you may gleam some truth for yourself, you may not, but that does not discredit the Scriptures only in your understanding.

      I did share simular on another Topic on Punch but it is good to highlight what is God’s Truth.

      In reference to the 60 billion Clones on another planet you seem to be focusing on in your posts because you think it shows I’m in error, as I shared with Brad ....how long do you think it would take Scientists to create 60 billion Clones one by one as they mostly do today,  which does seem to point to it being impossible as well as the other points I mentioned that you chose not to mention, but that’s ok others can read too..

      God is from another dimension one that is never ending and is Eternal, when people say to me ...how is everyone going to fit in Heaven ?  they have no concept what Heaven really is, it’s not a building or even a Country regardless of it’s size.

      The Scriptures tell us there is no death in Heaven or pain or suffering only Joy, as Born again Christians in Heaven we will be physically like the Angels only our position will be greater, we are God’s Holy Children adopted by Him and part of His family, co - heirs with Jesus Christ His Son who is part of The Godhead which is called the Trinity today, meaning three in one.

      Many People are confused by the propaganda that there are Aliens who come from Outer space, at this point most of the evidence has been proven to be without Truth in proving Aliens on other planets exist. The word Alien really means anyone who does not belong in the environment in which they are found,  today it is also used to describe imaginary people from another Solar system or world, but God told us He created the earth and three Heavens, the one we see with our eyes,  the Solar system which NASA, Hubble Space exploration etc has unveiled and the Heaven where God etc dwells ... We also need to remember that the Bible tells us for God so Loved the world,  other worlds and Aliens as many believe them to be are not mentioned in Scripture, so does this mean God who is Love does not Love them? No He did not create them. The Scriptures also tell us how we and the World were Created and the Scriptures are God’s own words although recorded by man and even though some Translations have man’s error God’s Truth remains intact for those who seek His wisdom.

      Born again Christians are Aliens in that they we not belong to this world our Home is in Heaven, because we are Born again of God’s seed we are more then just human we are Super human not because of our abilities but because of the indwelling of the Lord Jesus Christ -. 1 John 3:1-11 - 1 Peter 2:8-10 - Philippians 3:20

      Jesus was conceived by The Holy Spirit but He was born in the flesh to a woman named Mary who God chose to be His earthly Mother, His body was man’s flesh and blood with all it’s limitations but He did not have Adam’s seed like we all do so He did not sin, He could not sin 1 John 3:1-11. Yes until we are perfected in Love we do sin and suffer the consequences of doing so but we are under God’s grace if we are indeed His Redeemed Children known by Him by our heart repentance, and when we turn from evil and do good by His empowering the deeds of our evil flesh nature is put to death by The Holy Spirit who is part of The Godhead,  Jesus did not sin,  He could not sin, Jesus like God The Father is Love and Love can do no evil.

      Christianity which you reject Jake teaches tells us that we are a higher creation then animals,  we are made in God’s image He is our Father and we are answerable to Him, the word Christian to many means Christ in you and He lives His life through us and we reflect His image which is Love and Love does not do evil.

      A good link which help you to have more understanding in regards to, logic, reason and fact etc is http://www.proofthatgodexists.org

      Take Care Jake - Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      01:32pm | 07/06/11

      What? Anne, you got that link from this very comment thread and you could see when you were down there replying to @WilliamK that I am already discussing the topic. What made you think that posting it again was a useful exercise?

      The website is a logical farce and both myself and @Brad have explained in a dozen different ways exactly why. I’d invite you to read the responses but I haven’t the slightest doubt you wouldn’t understand anything beyond “God is real w00t!”

      You really don’t think before you trot out a source do you. As soon as you see something which you think agrees with you, you just copy it and paste away.

      Have you got anything to add aside from how great you think your religion is? Because, as I mentioned earlier, I’m not really interested. I mean you go ahead and post what you want, but addressing bible quotes to me is a waste of both of our time. Maybe if you want people to read that drivel, just post it to everyone and don’t bother referencing me.

      Like I said, I’m just interested in correcting the factual misinformation you continue to spout.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:23pm | 07/06/11

      Your not very consistent Jake you said at first that….

      Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms

      Then you said…

      The lightest elements like Hydrogen and Helium formed as high-energy plasma cooled and coalesced around 400,000 years after the big bang (I know you understand or don’t believe in it, but if you want the scientific view, you don’t get much of a choice). The background energy present at the time was not sufficient to fuse elements much heavier than Helium.
      So please explain Jake for me where .Hydrogen and Helium came from originally and what caused the big bang ... and please show proof thank you.

      By the way I do have a choice and I choose to believe God not Secular thinking man who trust in their own wisdom or someone else.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      03:21pm | 07/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      Good lord Anne, are you serious? Are you just winding me up or do you honestly still not understood that evolution doesn’t have anything to do with stars?!

      My description of the formation of elements in the early universe IS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION!

      It is cosmology, a completely different science based on completely different research. How many different ways to I need to say it before you’ll get it through your head, Anne? Evolution has nothing to do with stars or the formation of the universe!

      EVOLUTION DESCRIBES HOW VARIETY EMERGES IN LIVING ORGANISMS.

      It’s bewildering to me how you are still not able to wrap your mind around this extraordinarily simply concept. It’s absolutely astonishing!

      To answer your question… Well… I already answered your question about where Hydrogen and Helium came from. As I said previously, they condensed out of the hot plasma which was left after the big bang. In the same way that steam condenses into water, plasma condensed into light elements.

      What caused the big bang? I don’t know. Nobody does. There are many hypotheses out there - one which I provided a link for earlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse), however none of these hypotheses have yet produced anything testable so there are no clear frontrunners just yet. That’s why scientists don’t claim to know what happened prior to the big bang.

      See Anne, science doesn’t claim to know things that it has no evidence for. That’s the difference between people like you who make up answers to suit what they want to believe and scientists who search for answers that explain the real world.

      Science says: “We do not yet know what caused the big bang, or what the conditions were prior to the big bang. But we will continue to look for the answer.”

      You say: “I have no understanding what the big bang is but I know it can’t be real, no matter what the evidence says. I know how the universe really started - despite a lack of any tangible evidence.”

      What “proof” would you like to see of the big bang? A photo taken just before it happened? There is plenty of evidence to support the theory:

      - The cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB),
      - Metric expansion of space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space)
      - The abundance of primordial elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis)
      - Galactic distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution)

      ... and plenty others at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang).

      If you were going to offer any kind of scientific challenge to the theory, you would first need to find alternate explanations for all of these things.

      I doubt you’d even understand any of these articles, let alone be able to provide an academic challenge to them. Nevertheless I assume you won’t allow your lack of knowledge of the subject prevent you from knowing with certainty that they’re flawed theories.

    • Concerned Believer says:

      03:55pm | 07/06/11

      @oAnne Stocks
      Anne, please stop replying. You are an embarrassment to all rational Christians. Believing in our Lord is an admirable thing but denying truth is not and that is what you are doing. Jake is an atheist which I don’t think is a good thing but at least he is displaying honesty. Your behaviour is a disgrace! When you deny reality and blindly repeat untruths even after you have been shown that they are false you make a mockery of your belief in the grace and glory of God. I hope you find your way back to the path soon.

      Matthew 7:15,16 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits….

      2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:35pm | 07/06/11

      God who wants you to be His friend says….................

      Click Link please - http://creation.com/whats-this-all-about

      Will be praying for you - Kind regards Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:50pm | 07/06/11

      Dear Concerned Believer after reading your message I’m a concerned Born again Believer of God’s seed- see 1 John 3: 1 -:11.

      Sadly you claim I am a false teacher, is it because I believe in Creation without Evolution or are you upset about something else, you didn’t say.???

      My conscience is clear, I have not said anything in regards to Scripture that I cannot confirm by Scripture, what worries me is you claim I am sinning by being a false teacher but you have no Scripture to back it up only your own agenda.  God tells us as Christians when we judge others falsely we are judging ourselves and will be accountable for it,  be very careful what road your walking Concerned. I have had others Christians who believe in Evolution accuse me of being in error but God’s Truth always confirms what I share as well as His Creation.

      You said Concerned… When you deny reality and blindly repeat untruths even after you have been shown that they are false you make a mockery of your belief in the grace and glory of God… Just in case it is not about Evolution for you then please explain by Scripture how I deny reality and blindly repeat untruths even after I have been shown that they are false.

      Jake has not shown me one bit of evidence that proves God does not exist or that we Evolved which is in fact saying God is a liar, because He tells us we were Created by Him in 6 literal days and the Scriptures confirm this. 

      Jake also claims that Aids did not come from the immoral behaviour of Homosexuals in the first place and that God calls it shameful and unnatural all without evidence or that there is indeed a Planet with 60 billion Clones of me etc Ha Ha. Jake also contradicts himself which is the same as Evolution Scientist do and they also keep changing their minds, this is why I won’t read his links I do not focus on error, anyway Evolution is something I once had a lot to do with so I am not unaware of what it teaches both as a Child and Adult, God tells us He is the same Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow so why should I listen to worldly man regardless of their titles when they keep changing their mind.. As far as my Statement that Bacteria causes aids, it will be proven without doubt that it is not a Virus. 

      You are right Jake is an Atheist so has no understanding of Scripture ( see below and please read in context ) but Jake is sincere in what he believes and for this I respect him but sadly he is sincerely wrong which I have shown him to be even if he won’t accept the Scriptures but you should if you claim to be a Believer.

      1 Corinthians 2 But the natural man received not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. But he that is Spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? but we have the mind of Christ.

      You claim to be a Christian Concerned and as I don’t know your eternal destiny I can not judge if this is True only God can,  but by your words right now you are not walking in Christ Jesus because as I said you are accusing another Believer without proof and God tells us this is sin, it also shows lack of Christian Love. Yes I do correct error , rebuke sin and warn those who are in danger in Love and in honesty as God tells us to do but He also tells us we must confirm what we say by His Truth not just what we think to be True which sadly is what you are doing.

      My advise to you Concerned is to go back to my other posts on this Topic and other Topics,  then post again but with Scripture that confirms where and how I’m in error,  if you can’t do this or you wont the sadly it confirms you are the one that is in error not me and you need to come to heart repentance and ask for both God’s and my forgiveness. 

      What also concerns me is when someone invents a bogus name to hide their identity as well as if they are male or female ? this is ok for most but not when your claiming you are a Believer and then boldly without proof according to the Scripture not worldly teaching, condemns another Believer by Scripture used out of context,  I feel it is your integrity that is in question not mine and this is why I am rebuking you also I care enough to do so.

      Also Concerned who gives you the Authority to tell me not to continue sharing God’s Truth on Punch, I’m answerable to Him not you and He confirms by Scripture and other Christians that I’m doing His will.

      I do hope that you do see the Light what ever you focus is… you didn’t really say although you did mention God’s grace and Glory but unless you can confirm your Slander about me with God’s Truth then it is you who is casting a dark shadow on them and are also an embarrassment to His Name, but I will be praying this is not so and that you are just confused like so many are- Christian Love Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:37pm | 07/06/11

      So please explain Jake for me again where .Hydrogen and Helium came from originally did they come from nothing ??? and what caused the big bang ??? ... and please show proof thank you .

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      08:45am | 08/06/11

      No Anne…

      As I have told you twice now, Hydrogen and Helium condensed from plasma. It didn’t come from nothing.

      If you don’t understand it, stop trying to critique it ok?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:13am | 08/06/11

      You said Jake ....As I have told you twice now, Hydrogen and Helium condensed from plasma. It didn’t come from nothing.

      So where did the Plasma come from ???????

      Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      10:51am | 08/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      “So where did the Plasma come from”

      I’ve already answered that for you also Anne. The plasma was what made up the entire universe in the period just after the big bang.

      If your next question is “what was there before the big bang”, I already answered that, too. We don’t know yet.

      Are getting to a point sometime soon or do you intend to just keep asking questions I’ve already answered?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      12:13pm | 08/06/11

      I can’t find Jake where you answered, when and how the Big Bang happened and what caused it, could you please refresh my memory, .

      Thanking you Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      12:21pm | 08/06/11

      P.S Forgive me Jake for not understanding but you seem to be talking in circles ...So how did the Plasma fill the entire Universe and once again where did it come from and whai is it made from.???

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      12:59pm | 08/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      I’m not talking in circles Anne, you just don’t take the time to read and understand things before you try to respond to them.

      The sensible thing would be to read one of the many links I’ve posted and gain a basic understanding on the subject rather than expecting me to repeat myself. If you have a genuine interest in the subject, read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution. If you’re not interested in understanding the subject then stop asking pointless questions and hurry up and get to your point.

      To repeat myself once again, energetic plasma was what remained after the “big bang”. Plasma didn’t “fill” the universe, it was the universe. It was the same elementary particles which make up Hydrogen and Helium, however in a more energetic state. It was not until the plasma cooled a few hundred million years later that it condensed into these light elements.

      You know how steam is just water in a higher energy state, and as steam cools it condenses into water? This is a similar concept to plasma condensing into light elements.

      The plasma was made from various elementary particles - exactly the same particles that everything in our universe is made from today, just at a much higher energy since it was much hotter. As it cooled, it condensed into larger “clumps” of particles which became the light elements.

      Plasma is simply one of the many states that the matter of the universe went through as it expanded from a singularity toward what we see today.

      “I can’t find Jake where you answered, when and how the Big Bang happened and what caused it”

      I can’t find where, prior to this comment, you asked when or how the happened, but to answer the question of when, the best estimates right now suggest the big bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.

      As for how it happened… I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. I’ve described the basics of how we got from a singularity to the universe we see today. If you mean what caused the inflation (i.e. big bang) it to happen, then as I said, we don’t know yet.

      I think I’ve been quite clear on all this but if you think I haven’t, don’t feel like you need to take my word for it. The link I’ve provided (several times) answers these questions.

    • Very Concerned says:

      09:54pm | 07/06/11

      Anne, if that is your real name. You are certainly a disgrace.

      You claim not to lie yet

      “anyway Evolution is something I once had a lot to do with so I am not unaware of what it teaches”

      You have in your last few posts alone, shown you lack even a fundemental understanding of Evolution. This quite simply depicts that you know nothing of what you are criticising and dismissing as wrong.

      You also seem to not know a lot about how the universe was formed, our planet formed or how life originated.

      These are simple scientific truths which are taught in highschool yet sadly it appears you payed no attention.

      You in your own words state:

      “is an Atheist so has no understanding of Scripture”

      Well the exact same is true for you and science. You believe you know something, but through several posts, you have displayed a childish understand of basic concepts in science. You may know scripture, which is fine, but it is exceedingly arrogant and ignorant of you to chide people for defending science from your dark age rants.

      You seem to have a lot of time on your hands and as such, I would recommend you at least understand it is what you are criticising. If you are serious about debating modern science and wish not to make yourself the laughing stock that you convey yourself to be, I would invite you to review some simple videos.

      These videos are made available to school age children, they reference religion and atheism only very lightly, sticking almost solely to the science that is from the big bang, through to us.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/100500E4C9404405

      There are only 9 x roughly 10 mins videos, they were recorded over the last few years so some of the content may be missing some more recent discoveries, but it assist science illiterate people such as yourself, to better understand what science ACTUALLY claims, as opposed to the Strawman arguments many of the creationists you read seem to present to you (judging from the links you have provided).

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:49am | 08/06/11

      Do you know Very Concerned everyone has their own style of writing it’s called their Signature,  they often use the same expressions, words, or verbs and nouns,  it’s much the same as we all have our own mannerisms etc.

      As I said before I know enough about Evolution to realise it’s deception, I do not have to continually study it, I prefer my focus to be on what is God’s Truth and what is acceptable to Him,  Evolution is not and never will be, because it contradicts His Truth in the Scripptures.

      I watched a D.V.D a few weeks ago that showed why Evolution is full of holes and why Creation answers all the questions of our Origins, of course I have seen simular before and I have a whole series on the Creation of the Animals etc which leaves no doubt that Evolution is a fraud but it was interesting that it was given to me not long before I started posting on Punch which I didn’t know existed and clicked on unintentionally,  God always prepares us for what He has called us to do.

      The D.V.D is called The Question of Origins,  There is actually a considerable body of sound, Scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of Evolution, some of which appears to be absolutely incompatible with the Theory,  if you want to read more…

      http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
      http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=52

      My name is indeed Anne Stocks, it is something I’m very thankful for it means a lot to me,  I also have a Pen name but it is not to deceive in fact many call me by this name also, although not the complete name the rest is more of a reference to what I focus on.  I mainly use it when I write Poetry or Christian Stories, mostly True although some are Metaphors, I hope that has filled you in.  I don’t have to lie or make up names I have nothing to hide or am I in secure.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      01:02pm | 08/06/11

      I’m a huge fan of potholer54’s videos. Not sure if you’ve also looked at his potholerdebunks channel which also has to very good content.

      You’ll never get Anne to look at these but hopefully other people reading the comments will find there way over there.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:31am | 08/06/11

      You asked about Santa Clause Jake…....

      The True story of Saint Nicholas the man from whom the name of Santa Claus derives and in whose honour Santa Claus may be referred to as Saint Nicholas or Saint Nick,  From the poem called The Night Before Christmas he is best known today as a fat jolly man with Reindeers and escapades down Chimneys, a Fairy Story for Children.

      But it all began with Saint Nicholas, who was born during the third century in the village of Patara. At the time the area was Greek and is now on the southern coast of Turkey. His wealthy parents, who raised him to be a devout Christian, died in an epidemic while Nicholas was still young he then lived with his uncle.

      Obeying Jesus’ words to “sell what you own and give the money to the poor,” Nicholas used his whole inheritance to assist the needy, the sick, and the suffering. He dedicated his life to serving God and was made Bishop of Mara while still a young man. But Bishop Nicholas was never officially Canonised this legend simply evolved. .

      Bishop Nicholas became known throughout the land for his generosity to the those in need, his Love for Children, and his concern for Sailors and Merchants.

      Many Stories and Legends have grown up around Bishop Nicholas some True and some not True, for some they are used just for material gain, but for many others they are because people what to hold onto something or someone but they have to be bigger and greater then anything or anyone else so they make up stories which are not based on God’s Truth but are creating an Illusion and they do this because they are trying to meet needs that only the True God can satisfy.

      Over the years people come to believe these made up stories were true and sadly many start to worship these people that have been created in the imagination of others and give them the glory that belongs to our Heavenly Father alone and to those He apportions it to.

      God’s word tells us we have one mediator Jesus Christ and He is the one who intercedes for us not St Nicholas or anyone else no matter how devout that person was or is . As we pray we do so in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ no other persons name.

      Bishop Nicholas was a humble man and sought to serve the Lord without fanfare or promoting himself and I’m sure if he was alive today he would be dismayed by the way some people overlook the real meaning of Christmas and make him (Santa Claus) their main focus. They do this instead of giving the Glory and honour to God and thanking Him for His great Love for us expressed in His wonderful Gift… His son Jesus Christ. They do not accept Jesus and deny His reality and so they miss out on a relationship with the Living God because they worship the created things instead of the Creator.

      St Nicholas as He is commonly known lived his life with generosity and good will because of his thankfulness and Love for the Lord, but he did this not only during the month of December but all year because he believed in his heart… that it is in giving that we will receive and this does not have a time frame.”

      So if you choose to remember St Nicholas at Christmas then keep in mind he is not the reason for the Season Jesus Christ is and His Name is above every other name and it is He who is to receive our Glory, Honour and Praise.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      08:49am | 08/06/11

      Anne you’re using a lot of words to say nothing. I asked for proof that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, you have provided a story which you believe explains where the myth came from.

      I believe that your bible is a myth created by bronze aged people to explain things they didn’t understand. Does that prove God doesn’t exist? Of course not. Your myth hypothesis proves nothing.

      Try again.

    • Jake says:

      10:09am | 08/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      Anne… I think people are trying to send you a message…

      If you still can’t see your failures here then I can’t think of any other ways to help you. It is truly character building to be shown that you are wrong as I have learned many times in my life - and continue to learn. We can never become better people unless we accept our own failings but you seem completely unwilling or unable to recognize when you are wrong, and until you do, you will never grow intellectually.

      You asked somebody else what “untruths” you have been spreading. How many times did I show you that your claim of AIDS being caused by bacteria was wrong? How many times did I explain to you that evolution did not claim that life emerged spontaneously? How many times did I tell you the big bang theory does not claim that everything started from nothing. Despite your glaring lack of understanding of these subjects, you have continued to claim insight.

      That is a lie. You think evolution involves stars and the origin of elements. It doesn’t. You think it’s about the beginnings of life on earth. It’s not. These aren’t points for debate, they are simple facts. You may disagree about whether evolution actually happens but you cannot honestly claim to understand what the theory teaches.

      You seem to think that a DVD you watched has prepared you to discuss evolution. I note that the DVD was produced by a group who are expressly opposed to the theory of evolution.

      Let me ask you a question, Anne. Answer honestly. If I wanted to learn the truth - as you see it - about your God, do you think I should watch a DVD created by a group who are expressly anti-religion? Do you think they would give me a fair and open appraisal of religion if they make it clear that they do not support religion or believe in God?

      Because that’s what you’ve done. You’ve watched a DVD by a group who say they disagree with evolution and seem to think that gives you some knowledge of the subject. What makes you think that watching a DVD on a given subject produced by a group who are expressly opposed to that subject will give you a fair and open appraisal?

      Are you afraid to watch a DVD created by scientists who agree with evolution? What are you afraid of Anne?

      As it happens I have watched your DVD. I saw it several years ago when it was linked by someone not unlike yourself in youtube. I wonder how many evolution videos you’ve watched which were produced by people who support the theory? Let me guess… 0?

      In short, this video deals primarily with cosmology (i.e. the big bang) rather than evolution. The primary “evidence” they provide for most of their apologetics is a perceived lack of physical evidence supporting the big bang. They conveniently fail to mention *any* of the evidence which actually exists, including the list of things I linked you in an earlier comment, instead claiming that because they can’t find any evidence, it’s not there.

      They go on to touch on Intelligent Design and the supposed “evidence” for design (complexity implies design pffft). This has of course been utterly debased as a science and it’s fall has been well documented. I’d post a link for you but I think we both know you wouldn’t read it if I did… Oh what the heck, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Creating_and_teaching_the_controversy

      Anyway, I watched your video. So I want you to watch mine. It’s a series of videos posted on youtube by a BBC journalist name Peter Hadfield (porholer54). The series “Evolution Made Easy” was is aimed at giving an understanding of the concepts of evolution to school aged viewers - I think that should be perfect for you Anne! Better yet, unlike “Eternal Productions”, Mr. Hadfield has made these videos free to download and copy, so you won’t even have to pay for it.

      Here’s a link (I can’t access YT from here so if it doesn’t work, let me know.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMqjQo9wFow

      I’m not naive enough to think you’d actually put any effort into understanding the other side but I’ll put the challenge out there for you anyway. If you watch his series, or even just a couple of the 10 minute segments, I would be delighted to discuss what you see as the shortcomings of the theory of evolution. Until then, there is really no point trying to discuss it since you don’t even understand what the theory claims.

      This is why you don’t understand these relatively simple things. You surround yourself only in information which supports what you want to believe and reject without consideration anything which doesn’t.

      I don’t know what else to say, Anne. If you refuse to honestly look into the science then you will never understand it. Go on convincing yourself that you do if that makes you feel better but it seems pretty clear to me from reading other people’s comments that your lack of integrity and honesty are plain enough for everyone to see.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      01:37pm | 08/06/11

      Jake I decided to watch the Origins of life Video again it’s just so good but it seems you did not understand that I have no interest in filling my head with your unproven theories about Evolution because they are not being viewed by God’s Truth which shows them to be in error and why, this has also been proven Scientifically see topics on link below.. your choice if you don’t .

      http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/

      It was also your choice to watch the Creation video, I’m pleased you did, I can now ask you questions in reference to it, but please remember it is also my choice not to watch your Evolution video and I choose not to..

      What you don’t seem to understand Jake when I study about Creation past and present I also examine the Theory of Evolution alongside it and know according to the Scientific and Scriptural evidence we have it would have been impossible for our Origins to have started the way Evolution describes, it is indeed in the realms of make believe except for the few things which agree with Creation.

      I choose Jake right from the beginning not to argue about Evolution with you and instead present Biblical Truths that showed it was in error, if you choose to believe them or not that is your choice . One of the laws that God gave the Isulites to protect them was in regards to hygiene and how they were to dispose of their feces, because of the dangers of infection,  of course we know today that the dangers are because of bad bacteria,  so if the Anus is used wrongly it can cause infection.  .... perhaps you would like to check it out Jake both medically and by the Scriptures. 

      Yes I would agree with you someone is trying to confuse others ... But who is it .... I have proof for everything I share…. do you ?

      Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      03:11pm | 08/06/11

      The theories about evolution in the “Origins of Life” video are completely unproven, yet you’re happy to fill your head with those.

      Don’t pretend that you are interested in evidence because you’re not. you will agree with anything that supports what you think and disagree with anything that doesn’t.

      “it would have been impossible for our Origins to have started the way Evolution describes”

      You cannot be serious… This has to be a joke right? Do you seriously still think that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life or are you trying to be funny?

      Do you not believe me when I say evolution is nothing to do with the origin of life or do you just not understand? Because it’s an absolute mystery to me how you can continue to think this when you have been corrected multiple times by multiple people.

      “I choose Jake right from the beginning not to argue about Evolution with you and instead present Biblical Truths that showed it was in error”

      This is an out and out bald-faced lie Anne. Several of your posts are attempting to attack evolution with information that has nothing to do with evolution. You decided not to argue about evolution Then explain the following quotes from you:

      “As I said before I know enough about Evolution to realise it’s deception”

      “There is actually a considerable body of sound, Scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of Evolution”

      “All Truth Brad has evidence nothing comes from nothing Evolution is a lie you are Deceived”

      “as we know some of Evolution teaching does agree with Creation findings but this means it is supporting it instead of proving it is in error”

      “after examining both the evidence of Creation and the unproven ones of Evolution it was very humbling to realise what a fool I had been”

      “Scientists who propagate Evolution when it claims our Holy God and Creator is a Liar”

      You choose not to argue about evolution? What a load. You are truly pathetic Anne. Are you so self-deluded that you think your pitiful “evidence” of bacterial AIDS or spontaneous creation has any value whatsoever?

      You’re nothing but a worthless leech, Anne. You grow fat off the work of scientists but are still stupid and complacent enough to decry it using a medium which wouldn’t exist were it not for the work they do.

      Science is the reason you have a computer. Science is the reason you are able to use it to communicate over the internet. Science is the reason you have preserved food in your pantry and electricity to prepare it. To use the fruits of science to deny it is so ironic it makes my head hurt.

      What kind of self-important louse demands evidence for the big bang or evolution but refuses to read it on the grounds that they “do not focus on error”? You don’t read the links I post and then have the nerve to say they are wrong? You don’t even know what they say!

      You are beyond pathetic Anne. There is no word which aptly describes the patent lack of integrity you possess.

      If your “truth” had any value, then it would stand up to scrutiny. That’s how science works, you publish your findings and then the rest of the world tears them to pieces. Only the theories that are left standing at the end are considered to be scientifically sound. And yet your “truth” - your glorious knowledge given straight from god - is too fragile for you to even read what the other side has to say? Truly woeful.

      Crawl back under your bible, Anne. I hope for your sake that the technology science provides for you continues to cradle your existence because if you are ever called upon to fend for yourself in this world, you’ll be starved to death in a week.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:00pm | 08/06/11

      Hi Jake you said in an earlier post ......The Theory of Evolution describes a mechanism which, by observed natural processes, variety can emerge in living species which inherit traits from their predecessors. That is *all* it describes.

      * Evolution does not suggest that the universe was created by a big bang.
      * Evolution does not theorise on how life first emerged on earth.

      Then later you said…..

      Anne, evolution does not describe in any way shape or form how life on earth emerged, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      Again: Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      One more time: Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      Last time I promise: Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      Ok I lied, one more time: Evolution does not describe how life on earth began, the beginning of the world or the origin of elements. Evolution describes how variety emerged in living organisms.

      Now your saying Jake ..........

      The plasma was made from various elementary particles - exactly the same particles that everything in our universe is made from today, just at a much higher energy since it was much hotter. As it cooled, it condensed into larger “clumps” of particles which became the light elements.

      Plasma is simply one of the many states that the matter of the universe went through as it expanded from a singularity toward what we see today. to answer the question of when, the best estimates right now suggest the big bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.

      As for how it happened… I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. I’ve described the basics of how we got from a singularity to the universe we see today. If you mean what caused the inflation (i.e. big bang) it to happen, then as I said, we don’t know yet.


      Strange Jake you claim without proof that God did not Create the earth in 6 literal days because it all came from the Big Bang but you have no proof or can even explain how the Big bang happened which was suppose to have started the Evolution process that you propagate ????????

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      03:21pm | 08/06/11

      Yes Anne… I do claim that God did not create the earth in 6 days.

      I also claim, without proof, that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

      I also claim, without proof, that Thor, God of Thunder is not responsible for lightning.

      I also claim, without proof, that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.

      I also claim, without proof, that my television works by scientific principles and not magic.

      I also claim, without proof, that there are no invisible boogie men in my wardrobe.

      I also claim, without proof, that the earth does not rest upon the shoulders of Hercules.

      I also claim, without proof, that the world will not end on October 21, this year.

      Are you starting to understand yet? Is any of this sinking into that skull of yours? Just because you can’t disprove something doesn’t mean you should believe in it does it?

    • Anne Stocks says:

      04:21pm | 08/06/11

      Sorry Jake by your words you seem to be not very creditable you claim a lots of things and then change your mind like your Evolution Scientists do….

      God is the same Yesterday , Today and Tomorrow because He says He is and He does not lie or change His mind,  He is always Love and before you start giving Bible verses or anyone else does to show He isn’t, it’s pointless because you or anyone else who believes in Evolution and does not have the Holy Spirit cannot understand God or the Scriptures He inspired because you are worldly meaning a natural man and this means as the Scriptures tell us ....

      1 Corinthians 2 But the natural man received not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. But he that is Spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? but we have the mind of Christ.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      05:01pm | 08/06/11

      No Anne… I didn’t change my words, you just don’t understand them, and I’m tired of trying to help you. Just accept that you don’t understand and stop trying to blame others for it.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:47pm | 08/06/11

      But I do understand Jake what is important, in Truth I have no doubts about what I believe and know it is 100% True and I don’t need to abuse others and slander them to get my point across although I some times I do use humour like you do and although it does make me sad that at this time you deny the Truth it is still your choice which you will be accountable for.

      I appreciate that you feel you were trying to teach me and for this I thank you,  I’m sure your intentions were based in kindness but what you think is important for me to learn has no foundation,  I have one Teacher and through the empowering of The Holy Spirit He is teaching me all things.

      Sad that you deny your Lord and Creator He Loves you Jake and has a wonderful plan for your Life,  more wonderful then you can imagine please don’t waste it,  you are a very gifted man but it will all count for nothing if you reject His hand of Love reaching out to you. 

      I’m going to say goodbye now Jake,  I think we have finished our conversation,  I may punch again in the future, I don’t know time will tell but I will pray for you as no doubt many others are doing especially your wife.  Take Care -  Kind regards Anne

    • Here to Help :P says:

      08:26pm | 08/06/11

      hahaha wow this is still going?

      Anne let me dumb it down to a level you probably still wont understand.

      Stuff to do with the universe belongs to the COSMOLOGY field of science.

      Stuff to do with the origin of life belongs to the ABIOGENESIS field of sceince.

      Stuff to do with how life changed post origin belongs to the EVOLUTION field of science.

      Lets recap as it is clear you have a learning deficiency.

      Stars, planets, big bang, origins of the universe = COSMOLOGY

      Start of life = ABIOGENESIS

      How life has changed post starting - EVOLUTION.

      Jake has very patiently told you this several times, yet from you seem to still miss it.

      Do you get it now? This is really simple stuff. If you still dont get it, ask a child over the age of 12, maybe they can help you.

      I know you will read this as you are narcissistic, you cannot help but have the last word.

      Present me with your top three arguments against evolution - dont link to a website, provide the actual information for the best 3 cases you have against evolution. I will then show why they are invalid and why science has not accepted them.

    • Jake says:

      08:54am | 09/06/11

      I hope you didn’t spend too much time writing this comment, because you’d have an easier time explaining it to a goldfish.

      The saddest part of it all is that she will interpret her refusal to listen (or inability to understand it) as reinforcement that she was right all along.

    • A Spade's a Spade says:

      09:11pm | 08/06/11

      I think that for the sake of the sane we ought to agree that any attempt to be taken seriously by Anne is impossible. Anne is simply testifying at us to curry favour with her Lord and she SHALL not be distracted from this perceived duty.

      Anne you have compromised your beliefs (yet again) when you addressed Very Concerned in an earlier post (7:50pm yesterday) and said…

      “God tells us as Christians when we judge others falsely we are judging ourselves and will be accountable for it,  be very careful what road your walking Concerned…”

      Now now Anne ...at the very least I would expect you not to misquote the word of your God. The Bible proscribes believers from “ judging one another “ (i.e. Romans 14:13) this is not limited to “not judging others falsely” as stated by you.  Please feel free to correct me by providing a reference regarding your assertion.

      Ironically, shortly after admonishing Very Concerned you then engaged in the same behaviour yourself

      “You claim to be a Christian Concerned and as I don’t know your eternal destiny I can not judge if this is True only God can, but by your words right now you are not walking in Christ Jesus because as I said you are accusing another Believer without proof and God tells us this is sin, it also shows lack of Christian Love.

      A reasonable person would construe this statement as you judging another Christian. Please refer to Matthew 7:5 and pay particular attention to the first two words of the verse.

      In addition Anne, you ought not be so very distressed at what you have termed slander aimed at you – as the bible states that, in this way you are blessed (Matthew 5:11)

      Anne, thank the information you provided regarding St Nicolas. To demonstrate his faith by “sell[ing] what he owned and [donating] the money to the poor [to]assist the needy” truly demonstrates a deep commitment to his faith.

      Perhaps his example might compel you to do likewise – you might consider selling something you own and donating the money to the poor. May I suggest that you start with your computer so that we are spared from your egregious prevarication and blatant dishonesty. 

      You ought to spend more time praying for yourself rather than taking the liberty of praying for others…

      Kind Regards,

      James

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:47am | 09/06/11

      By the way James a Spade is an offensive ethnic slur which means it is an extremely offensive name for a Black person which only they can use in regards to another Black person.

      Are you a Black person James if so I am not and even if I were it would not be a name I would use because I’m in Christ Jesus..

      Also Brother James as you seem to claim your are .. If you are reading the Scriptuers through the empowering of The Holy Spirit you will know that what I have shared in my posts is God’s Truth, 

      1 Corinthians 2: 12 - 16 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with Spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

      Take Care - Kind Regards Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:33am | 09/06/11

      Dear James, as you profess to be my Brother in the Lord I will refute your claim as God tells us we are to do in 1 Peter 3:15-17 the same as I did with Concerned Believer who accused me of being a false teacher.

      I had decided after prayer not to continue my conversation with Jake, Brad and also Ian and Dave on another Punch Topic because they do not understand the things of God and because I was also not prepared to argue about the Science of Evolution with them because it is denying Creation and it’s Creator our Lord as revealed in the Scriptures.

      I do seek to stand up for God’s Truth and witness about our Lord and Saviour as we are asked to do but as the Scriptures affirm which if you read my other posts you will see that without The Spirit they can’t understand unless they are being lead to repentance which I had hoped they were but by their continual words of denial and abuse it seemed they were not, still it may one day be true as I said before which you highlighted,  I don’t know their eternal Destiny only God does this is why we are not to judge anyone in the world for Eternal damnation as they may come to heart repentance on their deathbed or before by the good seeds that were planted through hearing God’s Truth,  it does not return to Him void when shared in the power of The Spirit of Love. Also as the Scriptures tell us we are not to argue about what they believe ...

      1 Timothy 6:20 -21 .... keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of Science falsely so called:  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

      I use the K.J.V because of Copyright… in other translations the word Science is Translated as Falsely called knowledge (N.K.J.V ) or Worldly and empty chatter (NASB) and Opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge ( N.I.V ) 

      We are told that by believing in things which worldly Science propagates such as Evolution sadly many have lost touch with God’s Truth and their faith has weakened.

      In regard to Judging we are told many times in Scripture to do this but it must be according to God’s Truth not worldly understanding or it will be false but this is in regard to sin not weaknesses and shortcomings these we are not to Judge instead we are to be Tolerant and understanding because we all have them… we are to treat others as we want to be treated.

      As an example… If we are to Test false Spirits and to rebuke, correct error, or warn others they are in danger of falling away,  then we must Judge them to do so but by the Scriptures not our own worldly understanding as they tell us or we are judging them falsely.

      As for me being a False Teacher as accused and wrongly sharing the Scriptures they tell us how we can recognise False Teachers ...  and the most important way is they deny Jesus as Lord and part of The Godhead or Trinity as it is called today the word Lord in the Greek means God and we are told in the Scriptures that God The Father , God The Son the Living Word and God The Holy Spirit are One 1 John 5:7-8 when they can’t confess this then what they teach is in error because only those who have The Spirit can claim this in their heart that Jesus is Lord even if they are weak in their faith or have been deceived.1 Corinthians 12: 3

      2 Peter 2 : 1- 3 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

      As a Born again Christian I have never denied the Lord as being part of the Godhead so I rebuke you James, as I did Concerned believer for saying so by claiming I am a False Teacher and like I asked her or him please provide the evidence that shows what I have been sharing is not confirmed in the Scriptures. 

      I will Continue on my next Post in response to your statements.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:35am | 09/06/11

      Continued from previous post to James…

      Also in reference to judging Concerned believer,  her or him Judged themselves because by condemning me their Sister in the Lord without proof of what they claimed according to the Scriptures they were sinning and for this they will be accountable unless they repent and ask for forgiveness and so will you James for verbally abusing and judging me without Scriptural confirmation also in the Church we are first to go to the person not tell it to others but as you know this is not possible on Punch,  e-mail addresses are not given out only they know who is really writing the posts.

      As for not being upset by slander and abuse,  I am indeed aware we will be blessed if it is because of Standing up for His Truth but they are not only slandering and abusing me but God as well as denying Him and Jesus tells us when we do this to others we are doing it to Him,  this is one reason why He was known as a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,  He feels our hurt and pain. I have wept reading some of the posts and I will not wear a mask and pretend it does not hurt me to hear God blasphemed ( which is not just one word but our whole testimony in words and actions )  and belittled as well as denied through Evolution teaching, We also need to remember God gives us our emotions to express our feelings honestly,  this is why He tells us to cry with others and help carry their burdens.

      In regard to you judging me as to whether I give to help those in need, do you know if I do or if I don’t,  do you read my bank statements ? God tells us not to broadcast far and wide the good deeds we do,  or even to tell those in the Body of Christ if our purpose is to promote ourselves not Him and He knows our hearts and motivation for doing so and will reward those who have True Love and compassion for others.

      The Scriptures tell us we cannot earn our Salvation by worldly works it is a free gift which we must receive by heart repentance and by choosing to turn from evil and do good through the Spirits empowering and when we do this we will show we have Salvation..

      It was prophesied that Jesus would not defend Himself but He always defended God and when people accuse us falsely they are also accusing God.

      We are to Take Care in Christ Jesus - Christian Love Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:39pm | 09/06/11

      Hi - here to help : P

      As I explained there is no point in trying to share God’s Truth with those who only have worldly wisdom or knowledge,  because they can’t understand Scripture or The God who inspires them and I will not argue about Evolution theories that have not been proven or that disagree with Creation, this is why I will no longer share with Jake, Brad and any one else who want to argue,  abuse and slander to belittle others, or use extremely bad insults and hurtful humour, as well as those who also put down, belittle, slander etc those whom I Love…God and His Children.

      As for your 3 points… I have already shared at least 3 things in Scripture in my previous posts that could have only been known by God at the time man recorded them, I suggest you read them. 

      In regard to your breakdown of what people think relates to the formation of the Earth, Sky, Outer Space, Animals etc regardless of what box people put them in,  if Science does not agree with God’s Truth it is Deception.  God tells us in reference to all of these things in light of Jesus His Son who is part of The Godhead as He is and as is The Holy Spirit whom are known today as The Trinity,  meaning 3 in One ...

      For by Him were all things Created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him . And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. Colossians 1 :16 - 17

      You may not understand this Truth P but those who have The Holy Spirit will.

      This is the last time I will post on this conversation, but I will continue to share God’s Truth on another one.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne.

    • Here to Help :P says:

      08:36pm | 09/06/11

      “Evolution theories that have not been proven”

      It has been proven, you just choose to disregard anything that conflicts with your particular fairy tale.

      You have NO proof the bible is the word of god. It was written by men, for men, to give the men who wrote it… power. For centuries religious men have peddled their scheme and it has brought them great power and wealth, LOTS of wealth.

      Just because a book claims to be the word of a deity, does not make it so, unless it can be proven such with evidence. It is, the word of man, pure and simple. It is internally inconsistent and morally corrupt by todays standards, it is an accurate reflection of worldly men of their time. misogynistic slave owners with a very limited and uninformed view of the world.

      Fundementalists “interpret” so much meaning into phrases that make even theologians blush, like DNA and AIDs being mentioned in the bible. The bible references they produce to back these assertions are laughably generic and profoundly unintended from the original writings. Even though those writings have been fundementally altered through dozens of re-translations and rewordings over time.

      It is completely inconsequential what scripture you blurt forth Anne, it is completely meaningless in a discussion of reality or science.

      Scripture is for faith, you have faith because you have no evidence. If you had evidence, it would no longer be called faith.

      No scripture nor faith will ever disprove anything in science for one key reason. Science requires actual evidence, not imagined evidence. The bible is imagined evidenced, you want so hard for it to be actual evidence, but all it is, is a bunch of claims. No proof is supplied, just conjecture.

      You can prattle on all you like how you believe that the bible is right, that it is your truth. Thats great… but meaningless.

      Proof is in the pudding… ie: I could ask:  show me evidence that water turns to gas at 100 degrees centigrade…

      I could then put water in a pot over fire and heat till it starts converting into gas, take a temperature reading of the water.

      Thats evidence… proof of a concept. Something you simply do not have with the bible or any of the claims inside.

      “if Science does not agree with God’s Truth it is Deception”

      No, unfortunately the opposite is true. Science requires evidence to prove its assertions, the bible does not. Baseless claims vs evidenced claims, there is only one winner. Evidence. Science has it, your bible doesnt. To believe a baseless claim over an evidenced claim because of bias, now that is truely the meaning of deception.

    • Wake Up Anne says:

      09:07am | 10/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      “this is why I will no longer share with Jake”

      You no longer share with Jake because he told you in no uncertain terms that you were an idiot and stopped wasting his time trying to help you see reason. I don’t think you can take credit for that.

    • A Spade's a Spade says:

      07:54pm | 09/06/11

      Good Evening Anne,

      I ought to have known that you would unreasonably interpret the Spade moniker in the most unfavourable light possible i.e. as an ethnic slur. I must compliment you on your wonderful demonstration of lateral thinking and the operation of a long bow.

      My race or skin colour, like all of your rants and posts, is of no relevance to the issues being discussed.

      Please note that I have not claimed nor professed to be your brother – neither have I “seemed” to do so, but that is okay Anne, I will take it as just another misattribution from you. I also see that only those people who share your opinion/s can be reading the scriptures through the “empowering of the Holy Spirit”. Of course - you read through the prism of the Holy Spirit hence why your interpretation is “right” ergo when anyone brings a diverging opinion to bear – you immediately invalidate their understanding by judging that they do not read through the “empowering of the Holy Spirit” and are wrong. What a brilliant way of simultaneously claiming to be both right and righteous. How wrong you are in your wrongeousness.

      You stated “I had decided after prayer not to continue my conversation with Jake, Brad and also Ian and Dave on another Punch Topic because they do not understand the things of God and because I was also not prepared to argue about the Science of Evolution with them…” Anne, please see your previous posts where you have done little else but argue about the “Science of Evolution”.

      In the next paragraph you state that “Also as the Scriptures tell us we are not to argue about what they believe ...” Well – yet another breach of the covenants that you profess to maintain. Selective interpretation perhaps? I love the way that some Christians take the parts of the Bible they agree with “Literally” and then “choose” to interpret other passages “non – literally”. Anne, please show me where the Bible “literally” states that “Christians can Judge others” and the verse that “literally” states that the Bible only proscribes “judg[ing] others falsely”.

      I note that in none of your original responses to my posts did you reference in this particular verse.  Please try again.

      The 1 Timothy verse you brought to the table clearly states that you should avoid vain babblings and oppositions of science…All you seem to be doing is arguing against science. Yet another direction from the Bible you choose to ignore or interpret “non – literally”.

      I see you use the KJV because of Copyright. It appears that you are as knowledgeable about Copyright law as you are of other subjects upon which you post. Copyright does NOT prevent you from reproducing extracts or quoting from “books”, including the Bible. See the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and relevant case law.

      I do not care whether you donate or not. I simply suggest that you sell your computer and donate the money to the poor. Everyone will be a winner. The poor get some money, you make a donation and can feel all warm and fuzzy, and we are rewarded by the prevention of your future cyber pollution.

      I await your response so that you can have the last word(s)...

      Regards, James

    • Anne Stocks says:

      12:33am | 10/06/11

      Hi James so are you an Evolutionist ? it would not be surprise but it was strange to hear you say your not my Christian Brother, it seems you don’t know about the Brotherhood of believers, most Christians do even if they don’t call each other Brother James or Sister Anne although we do in my Church and so do others. We do this because this is what they called each other in the early Church and how the Scriptures refer to those in Christ Jesus.

      The definition of Spade did not come from my lateral thinking it came from my WordWeb perhaps you need to download it, I only have the old one but will update soon. you also should think about Downloading the Greek and Hebrew E- Sword but they are only Tools.


      As far as Judging it would be helpful for you James to read again what I wrote before as it explains what it means to Judge we need to remember when we read Scripture we are to do so by the empowering of The Holy Spirit not with worldly eyes meaning our own understanding or by what we read in books or by what other people tell us, they are all a guide only, we are told to test the spirit of those who teach or messages we hear or even what we think by the Scriptures and with the confirmation of The Living Word through the Spirit -. 2 Cor 3:5-7

      We are also told to correct error, rebuke all sin, warn others, all these things need us to Judge what people say and do but we do so in Love not with the attitude we are better this is the evil flesh nature and it is rotten through and through,  this is why it must be put to death by The Spirit, it is by God’s grace that we are saved not punished,  but I have explained this fully in another post.

      1Cor 5:11-13 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person

      This is saying and you can check other Translations,  we are not to Judge worldly people for Eternal Damnation but we are to Judge those in the Church.

      Perhaps you also need to look up the Greek or even a Dictionary to see what the word railer means, one tells us it means ... To spread negative information about another, or those who abuse others.

      What I have shared about Science comes from the Scriptures which are inspired by God and most Christians know what this means. The Scriptures tell us about the Truth of Creation not the worldly Science of Evolution that is unproven and calls God a liar. Also we are to contend with The Lord, we are His body etc When people talk about Evolution or anything else that is not God’s Truth we are not to argue but we are to correct when they are in error and so I did. I’m sure James if someone was telling your Child ? it is allright to murder or poison your dad if you don’t get on with him you would let them know very fast they have lost!.extreme example or is it . Those who doubt God’s Truth and propagate error are leading others into danger they could fall into sin or worse never be Born again of God’s seed 1John 3:1-11 and this means they would continue to spread lies which will hurt others and weaken their faith but I did explain all this in another posts.

      It would also help you James to read the Copyright laws in regard to the different Translations of the Scriptures in the Bible as an example most Translations which are not Public Domain say…Texts cannot be posted on other websites or servers it is provided for personal study or for use in preparation and presentation of sermons, Sunday school classes, undergraduate or seminary religion classes or other non-commercial study. This release does not apply to other media than paper printed distribution others say something simular. Whith the K.J.V there is no copyright laws at all and I don’t have to keep checking to see if they have changed.

      Your wordage James at times is anything but Christian ...why is this so if you profess to be one ? and there is no Love in what you say its condemning and abusive why? have you been hurt ? if so Jesus Christ is our healer. Matt 11:27-29

      The Scriptures tell us our words and actions show what’s in our heart or are your posts just to get a response from me, so did I take the bait ? no I carefully chose to respond even though I was going to move on but as for having the last word I’ll let God do that ... Kind regards Anne.


      1 Corinthians 2:14-16 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. But he that is Spiritual Judgeth all things, yet he himself is Judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

    • Corinne says:

      11:15am | 10/06/11

      What gives you the right or insight to Judge Anne?

      Matthew 7:1-5
      1   Judge not, that ye be not judged.
      2   For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
      3   And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
      4   Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
      5   Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

      There is only one who can judge and it’s not you…

    • Anne Stocks says:

      01:38pm | 10/06/11

      Thank you Corinne, not every one understands this Scripture they think it is referring to sin it is not, sin we are asked to Judge, it is as you shared and as the Scripture confirmed it is referring to weaknesses and shortcomings,  when we Judge others critically because of them it’s like looking into a mirror we see our own reflection.

      John 7:23-25
      If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? 4Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

      When Jake and Concerned Believer both claiming to be Christians Judged me as a false teacher without any evidence they were Judging themselves and will be accountable for it, I have never denied Jesus Christ as my Lord which is the sign of a false teacher,  since I came to heart repentance and was Born again of God’s seed 1 John 3:1-11 There are two ways to Judge but you are right Corinne, only one way is acceptable to God and that is by His Truth with an attitude of Love and humility not the other way which is with worldly understanding, abuse and condemnation.

        Thank you for supporting and defending me Corinne it is very much appreciated, I know a lot what I share may be hard even for some Christians to understand but what God has shown me to do is Look at the big Picture with His leading and wisdom and this is available to all those who believe in their heart and because they Love God seek to willingly obey Him with The Spirit’s empowering

      God bless you greatly Corinne.


      A Picture Says A Thousand Word
      The Scriptures Paint a Picture that is so Awesome in its Dimensions.
      So Breathtaking in its Creation that only…
      Holy Spirit Filled Eyes Can See.
      Revealed by the Living Word, Recorded by the Written Word…
      God Breathed on with Love from Our Heavenly Father.

    • Jake says:

      03:52pm | 10/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      “When Jake and Concerned Believer both claiming to be Christians… “

      You cannot be serious… Does someone put you up to this or is it just your own charming idiocy at work?

      If ignorance is bliss then you must be the happiest person on the face of the planet, Anne.

    • Corinne says:

      04:01pm | 10/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      I’m sorry Anne but you should read and understand before you reply. I neither support nor defend you. You do not have the knowledge to tell others that their interpretation of God’s word is wrong and yours is right. That is for Him to judge, not you. Your acts and words are sinful I pray that The Lord will bless you with the insight to see this..

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:50am | 12/06/11

      Yes sadly it does seem Corinne that I misunderstood you, I did not have much sleep the night I answered your post,  my moon boot and broken ankle were hurting perhaps that is why I misunderstood you.  I thought that because you used Scripture you believed what it said was True but then I should have remembered others on Punch have also tried to use it to condemn me and they also rubbished and abused not only me and other Christians but sadly God too,. One even said he didn’t believe in God but then tried to use the Scriptures to prove it,  I decided it was pointless trying to share anymore with them because without The Spirit they just cannot understand as the Scriptures tell us. If you doubt what I’m saying go back and read their posts on this topic and others before you condemn me. Remember Jesus got the whip out and called the Physires a brood of vipers,  He had righteous anger and we should have it also when people slander and belittle Him. 

      Not much point in seeking to show you your error because what you are acusing me of your doing yourself.

      Paul and the other Disciples and also Godly woman in the Scriptures corrected error and we also are told to do this… it is not sin it is obedience and we do so because we care and it hurts to see others deceived.  We need each other, and I seek to regard my Brothers and Sisters in The Lord as my family and as The Body of Christ we are to support and uplift each other. The Scriptures tell us Faith without works is dead and also works without Faith is worthless, so if we are not sure that what we share with others is not God’s word than why bother sharing it.

        I have no doubts that what I share is the wisdom I asked God for I would be unstable if I didn’t because after much confusion with different teaching in the Churches and going to God seeking His help,  He said my Child if you lack wisdom I will give it to you but you must believe you have received it and I do,  James 1:4-6 of course I’m still learning but I believe 100% that what God has showed me is True because He doesn’t lie,  if He promises us something He gives it to us and what He has shown me has always been confirmed in the Scriptures. If you don’t believe that Corinne then you don’t believe it for yourself and that’s your problem not mine because as you see below the Scriptures tell us as His Children when we are Born again of God’s seed He leads us into all understanding.  Jesus said you don’t have because you don’t ask and believe ... how true this is. 

      As for the Scripture below do you believe them Corinne ....The Holy Spirit does not say one thing to one person and something different to another and we are told not to agree to disagree but take our difference to God and He will show who is in error we are to be united in our focus and be one in mind.  You claimed I was sinning because I did not agree with what you said, well ask God if -  1 John 3:1-11 is True of you.

      I Corinthians 2: 9 - 16 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with Spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

      Yes James if it makes you happy Corinne did hurt me,  but at least I’m not living a lie like so many others.

      Take Care Christian Love Anne.

    • Corinne says:

      03:57pm | 12/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      It is one thing to judge acts, but it is no human’s right to judge the way another shows their love of The Lord. You keep saying that you know the true and correct interpretation of God’s word and that others who disagree with you are wrong. That is not your judgement to make.

      Some Christians believe in evolution because they don’t feel that it disagrees with the Bible. Some believe homosexuality is not a sin and that the Lord’s condemnation of the act in the bible is specific to those situations and not blanket prohibitions. Some feel that all of the bible must be taken literally where as some feel some parts are allegorical. You might think you know the answers for certain but only the fool believes this.

      Only God truly knows our hearts and only God can judge what is in them. It is neither your duty, nor your right to judge other people’s interpretation of His word.

      There is only one who truly knows the will of God. We are all imperfect and we are all unworthy of knowing His mind in this life. Do not be so quick to claim to know the Truth, Anne.

      God does not fear the whips and chains of non-believers so you should not fear them for Him. You should not fear to understand what you do not believe (e.g. evolution) for if it is a lie, then His glory will wash it away. If you claim righteous knowledge but do not even bother to hear what those you disagree with are saying, then you do a disservice to yourself, and you do a disservice to the Lord. To reach those who do not believe, you must understand what they say, and to understand what they say, you must be willing to listen. If you close your eyes and block your ears, then they will do the same to you and you will never reach their hearts.

      As you can see in these comments (which I spent some time yesterday reading), people will not respect what you say if you say it with a closed heart. As others showed you their evidence and asked for your opinion, you refused to read their links and you refused to listen to them. Why then do you think they should listen to you?

      Christ did not preach from a tower, he stood with the masses. You cannot hope to reach people if you only want to tell them how it is but not listen to what they say.

      I hope this makes sense to you Anne. Your word will always fall upon deaf ears while your own ears are deaf. Only when you understand what they believe, will you be able to reach them, and you will never understand what they believe if you close your mind to it.

      I do not believe in evolution, but I understand it… At-least far more than you appear to. Jake made a good point when he repeatedly corrected you about what evolution teaches. I know this because I understand that evolution does not teach the things you accused it of teaching. If you speak of the subject as though you understand it when it is clear that you don’t, you undermine yourself and you send the message that God’s believer’s speak as fools. That does not serve Him.

      My advice is that you don’t argue subjects that you do not understand. If somebody shows you evidence, thank them and then go and take the time to understand it before you accuse them of being wrong. If you make a mockery of their beliefs, they will do the same to you as these comments show.

      If you truly care for others and want to reach them, then you must understand them. That is where you have failed here.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:32am | 12/06/11

      Hi Jake I’m sorry, when I replied back to Corinne the first time believing she was supporting me I had very little sleep perhaps in hindsight I should not have been reading posts but it was better then tossing and turning in pain well at least I thought so.

      I have broken my ankle and after they removed the plaster they put me into a moon boot and I was having problems adjusting to it’s heavyness, I now take it off to sleep. Although I’m mostly always up very early as I go to bed early but with posting it has been later but no sleep at all is the pits.

      Anyway Jake I just wanted to apoligise for mixing your name up with James it was not internal.

      I have now responded to Corinne again although for some reason it has not been posted I’m going to check it out today but yes Corinne did hurt me but it is because she is confused or deceived and this I understand having been the same and so are you Jake but I will continue to pray.

      Kind regards Anne.

    • A Spade's a Spade says:

      12:42pm | 12/06/11

      Anne,

      I do not wish to see you hurt - as you allege I do in your previous post. This is merely another attempt by you to “flagellate” yourself and then blame others so to appear as a victim.  A simple yet ineffective ruse…

      It is implicit in my posts that I am more concerned with your intellectual dishonesty (as are others who posted) and the potential for you (through that dishonesty) to hurt and marginalise others.

      For example, your egregious assertion that AIDs is not caused by a virus but results from bacteria from a males intestines is incorrect, unsubstantiated, offensive and, if further disseminated and beleived,  likley to cause harm to those with the disease.

      Homosexuals do not and did not cause AIDS to be created as a punishment from God or for any other reason. This terrible disease is not created by what you see as “immoral acts” but can merely be transmitted through these acts and others such as breatfeeding or simply being born of an HIV AIDS infected mother.

      While espousing your religious views (which incidentally, are not those of your God) you may not wish to give offense but you are most certainly “laying it on pretty thick” without thought nor care as to whether the your assertions are based on fact, and the damage they might do.

      It is strange that your Lord made it abundantly clear that his followers should be honest and promote acceptance yet this is often lost on those who claim that the interpret His word “literally”.

      And Anne, you may not think that you are living a lie but you continually spruik untruths which in my view is the very epitome of living a lie - please note that I do not accuse you of living a lie through your belief in God - just the manifestation of that belief through your words.

      People have called upon you to provide evidence of the facts that you bring forth and you have continued to prevaricate, introduce one canard after another and become deceptive and evasive. Nevertheless, another opportunity now presents itself for you to present evidence for the assertions you have brought forward to be objectively assessed - so please feel free to bring this information forward now.

      Anyhow Anne, enjoy the Sabbath and I hope that your ankle heals well.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:32pm | 12/06/11

      Sorry Corinne and James as I said before I do not listen to those who twist Scripture to suite their own agenda or reject it and God and then abuse others and judge them without proof.

      I have also given ample evidence in regards to Evolution and Homosexuality not being acceptable to God and what I think is not the issue although I’m very much in agreement with Him. If you had read all my posts and on the other topics you would have clearly seen it was so but you are so sure you are right and wanting to put me down your ignoring what God tells us claiming it is wrong,  your blinded by your own perceptions and so can’t see the Truth. 

      Corinne I don’t really care what some Christians believe when it contradicts Gods word and no matter how much you try to cover over for them it only shows where your heart focus is.

      To reassure you I do not only think I know God’s Truth,  I kow it or I would not share as I do, but as I said before I’m still learning but I have no doubts about what God has shown me up to now is True and for you to claim this is wrong you are not only calling me a liar but God also,  as you can see below He does not promise what He will not give but perhaps you don’t think it is for you too.

      James 1:5 -8 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.  For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.  A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

      Do you honestly think that Paul and the early Christians did not know if what they were sharing was God’s Truth , they knew because they had the Holy Spirit and the confirmation of the Scriptures in the Old Testament and they received continued teaching from The Lord and this is the same for us today if we have ears to hear and eyes to see.

      The rest I have explained before and I’m not going over it again the only reason I have persevered this long is because I was once deceived like you both and I do care for those who are lost in deception but I will no longer be reading your posts or responding to them,  but I will continue to pray for you both.

      In my 60 years I have learnt that a person who is not teachable meaning willing to accept God’s Truth,  unless the Spirit is drawing them to repentance then no matter how much you witness they will reject it yes sometimes seeds my be planted but Satan snatches them away or the worries of life or the chattels, but thankfully those who are God’s Children will be rescued.

      We can know a persons heart focus by their words and actions and this is very clear in the Scriptures if this was not true God would not have told us to judge those who are sinning,  sorry Corinne you seem are very much deceived or confused and your words show it as does James words also, but it doesn’t have to stay that way.

      I evangelise a lot because that is where my heart is at and the Holy Spirit equips and empowers me to do so but as the Scriptures tell us some will believe and others will remain fools…. People will listen to what they want to accept even if it’s against God’s Truth.

      Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 
      Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

      2 Timothy 4:2-4 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the Truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

      Take Care - Kind Regards Anne.

    • Corinne says:

      06:41pm | 13/06/11

      Anne, you do not speak for God. For you to claim to is utter blasphemy and I truly hope you realise this one day.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:27pm | 13/06/11

      Dear Christian Men and Woman who posted thank you for you faithfulness and the strong stand you took for the Lord against persecution and abuse.I was very encouraged and uplifted as I read what you shared.

      Thank you Men for the strong God given qualities of Leadership that you showed as you shared God’s Truth regardless of the opposition and put downs,  I was proud of you as no doubt other Christians were and respected the Authority with which you defended God’s Truth and it is Him who will commend and reward you.

      Thank you Ladies for the support you gave and also your stand for God’s Truth even though you were at times put down and your views disregarded. But God delights in us as woman and has given us a very high calling as Helpmates to Men and we will be greatly blessed in the role.  It is a hard world we live in today with much opposition to God’s values and guidelines with Atheism and Evolution teaching disregarding God’s words of Hope, Peace and Joy in Him,  but you all showed yourselves worthy to be called by The name of the Lord. I don’t know your ages but felt by your comments that you were a lot younger then me,  so I was very encouraged by your Christian commitment to God’s Truth.

      Thank you all again and I look forward to being united with you in Heaven Christian Love Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:14am | 17/06/11

      I have been praying for you Williamk,  I have posted below a message that touched my heart I hope it will encourage you too,  God bless you greatly for your faithfulness - Christian Love Anne,

      If we plant in Truth… we will reap Integrity and purity in all things.
      If we plant in Humility through our respect for the Lord we… will reap greatness in Him.
      If we plant in Patience in our suffering we… will reap perseverance.
      If we plant in Thankfulness towards God and Others… we will reap contentment.
      If we plant in Respect through our words and deeds… we will reap consideration.
      If we plant in Understanding for others weaknesses ...  we will reap compassion.
      If we plant in Forgiveness through Compassion ... we will reap reconciliation.
      If we plant in Kindness with Truth ... we will reap True friends.
      If we plant in God’s prepared work for us ... we will reap success in the Lord.
      If we plant in Faith ...we will reap Trust in the Lord
      If we plant in Hope… we will reap Joy in the Lord.
      If we plant in God’s Love… we will reap a Rich Harvest.

      “Whatever we Give To Life, Life Gives us Back” if we give in the flesh we will reap bad fruit ...If we give in the power of the Holy Spirit we will reap good fruit.

      Although it is very True… we reap what we sow, but the good news is even if we do grow weeds or mess up when we come to full Repentance because we Love God, He can even use our mistakes for good. Let’s also remember that sometimes sadly we suffer when others choose to plant in the wrong soil or do the wrong thing, in fact Jesus Christ was killed and He had never did anything wrong and today many suffer because they are faithful in contending with Him for God’s glory and honour but their reward and Joy will be great.

      We need to ask the Lord for His strength to do as He asks…

      But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which insult, mistreat and despitefully use you. ( Luke 6:27-28 )

      Let’s plant deep in the rich fertile soil of the Lord…

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:26am | 18/06/11

      Hi WilliamK,  I hope you enjoyed the encouragement, I was not sure if you would see it but as I was scrolling through I noticed you Jake and Brad have continued posting right up to yesterday and what you explained to them and how you did was very good and I agree with you most of what they share are excuses and side stepping God’s Truth as they don’t want to accept it because it will make them accountable to Him and yes their abuse is because they are in a corner and realise they have no answers.

      Thank you also for your post to me, I must have overlooked it before, this is one reason I check again,  anyway so True what you said Eve was deceived into believing what God said may not be True but Adam listened to Eve’s ungodly advise and acted on it even knowing what God had told Him,  this was disobedience or rebellion ....and so the fall which is why we have people like Jack and Brad trusting in worldly Science to try to answer their questions and rejecting Godly Science which answers them fully.

      I will continue to pray for you William as you do God’s good work that He planned in advance and equipped you to do - Christian Love Anne.

    • Jake says:

      08:14pm | 18/06/11

      Oh lookee! Anne is still here!

      Do you have anything of value to add or are you just here to cheer-lead like a child?

      Say how are you coming along with that proof that Santa doesn’t exist? Got any good bible quotes for me today because I sure could use a chuckle?

      Keep on truckin’ Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:01pm | 19/06/11

      Hi Jake not being a rude person I will respond to your post and yes I do seek to encourage William he is my Brother in the Lord and as part of The Body of Christ Jesus asks us to uplift each other with the gifting He has given us and to spur other on or inspire them to do His good work. In other words I support William because He is a Godly man who seeks to do as God has called him to do.

      Jake I cannot answer for those in Churches or Cults who trust in their own interpretation of the Scriptures and claim they are infallible only God can claim to be this, so it is His understanding we are to seek and He tells us how to do this but many still Trust in what they think or what others have taught them instead of God’s wisdom, if we have God’s wisdom then we are infallible in His Truth not our own understanding.

      I’m a Christian Fundamentalist which to me means I’m a follower of Jesus Christ,  I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and I believe in its literal interpretation and fundamental teachings. I believe in the experience of the “New Birth” or being Born again of God’s seed,  which occurs when faith is placed in Christ Jesus as Saviour and Lord through heart felt repentance and that I will be conformed into the image of God’s Son by Him through the empowering of The Holy Spirit as my evil flesh nature is put to death by my choosing to walk in righteousness. To the world this may be viewed as radical, but is very basic to the Christian faith. I do not believe in violence against Abortion Clinics, Doctors the Government or anyone who does not agree with my beliefs but I do believe in standing up for God’s Truth regardless of the cost to me personally. I am not against Science only when interpreted to exult its self and when used to reject God who created it and what it expounds which is all things in Heaven and earth.

      In reference to the Scriptures you used in support of your claim and others that the Bible is in error…

      1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before Him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable , that it be not moved .

      Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

      Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

      The word stable in the Hebrews means to Stand Perpendicular. the word Moved or removed means not to Slip, Shake, or fall

      For more info please read link….http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm

      I have no problem with Science in relation to the Bible only man’s worldly interpretation of both.

      If you wish me to continue to respond to your posts Jake then please do not use abuse or insulting and degrading names ..your choice - Kind regards Anne

      P.S Santa minus the red suit, reindeers, big belly etc did exist, His name was St Nicholas, it would help if you read my posts with proper understanding.

    • Jake says:

      08:57pm | 19/06/11

      I didn’t ask about Santa minus the red suit and reindeers. I asked if you could disprove Santa with the red suit and reindeers. The one who visits every home on the planet in a single evening and knows if you’ve been bad or good. Can you disprove him?

      It would help if you read *my* posts with the proper understanding rather than ignoring the information I post because you decided before reading it that it was wrong. Nice to see that you expect me to look at *your* links though.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:04am | 20/06/11

      So Jake why do you think Santa with the red suit was propagated ? after all St Nicholas did not go down chimneys or fly through the air, or why do you think people believe in other gods that also have no basis in reality and reject the one true God ? Or why are those who reject God afraid to study the resources that prove Him to be True and instead believe in something that they can’t even explain let alone prove how it started.

      I’m not forcing you Jake to look at my links,  it’s your choice they are only there to help,  I’m not a Scientist they can explain things at that level, as for looking at your links, as I shared before I have as much understanding about Evolution that I need to have to know that it does not have a basis in fact, and not just at one point,  there are many sides of it that just don’t add up and it also has no point of reference that really confirms it is True, so unlike Santa with the red suite it does not even have a starting base in reality but uses what we see around us that is God’s Creation and distorts it,  so just like Santa,  Evolution is a myth that has been perpetuated and our logic and reason based on God’s Truth confirms this to be True….Magic is all about illusion, delusion and tricks.

      Can I substantiate how God came into being ...Yes… can I prove He is a reality ..Yes… and I have done so more them once but because you don’t believe in Him, you can’t understand and this is because you choose not to,  instead you choose to believe in something cold and impersonal without feeling like Evolution which is based on worldly Science instead of a God that Loves and cares for you. Evolution makes no demands on you,  asks for no commitment, no response, no feeling,  it’s cold , it’s dead ..GOD IS LOVE ... HE IS ALIVE and that is your problem.

      I do care about you Jake, I have been praying for you and Brad and the others since you all touched my life through Punch - you are a intelligent and talented man Jake,  I would hate to see it all wasted on something that is dead.

      Kind regards Anne.

      One reason for Santa - http://ezinearticles.com/?Will-Santa-Come-Down-Your-Chimney?&id=5450463

    • Jake says:

      01:07pm | 20/06/11

      I’m well aware that some non-believers attribute Santa to be a reference to St. Nicholas. But I’m not interested in legends about his origins. People who are afraid to admit that Santa is real make up stories in an attempt to explain away his existence because they fear his judgement. There’s a million stories about the origins of every super-natural being, including your god.

      For example the story of the god Mithras very closely resembles the story of Jesus but pre-dates Christ by more than 1000 years. He is considered by some to be the likely root of the “Jesus myth”, much as you are suggesting St. Nicholas is the root of the Santa Claus myth.

      Will you accept this as proof that Jesus was just a myth based on an earlier story and not really the son of god? If not then I do not accept your St. Nicholas story as proof that Santa isn’t real.

      If you can’t disprove Santa, will you agree that an inability to disprove any given super-natural being - including your god - does not prove that it exists?

      “why do you think people believe in other gods that also have no basis in reality and reject the one true God”

      Because Christians have been unable to provide any more objective evidence for their “one true God” than anybody else.

      “can I prove He is a reality ..Yes… and I have done so more them once but because you don’t believe in Him, you can’t understand and this is because you choose not to”

      No… As I said to WilliamK, if your proof requires that I believe that god exists, then it isn’t a proof. If I already accepted that god existed, then I wouldn’t need proof would I?

      Your only proof of god is the bible. Your only claim to the veracity of the bible is that it is the word of god. Circular logic does not constitute proof.

    • Jake says:

      01:24pm | 20/06/11

      “as I shared before I have as much understanding about Evolution that I need to have to know that it does not have a basis in fact”

      No you do not. You think that it describes the origins of the universe but it doesn’t. You think it describes the origins of life on earth but it doesn’t.

      You *think* you know enough about evolution to know that it is a flawed theory, but the very clear fact is that you know very little about it at all.

      “Evolution makes no demands on you,  asks for no commitment, no response, no feeling,  it’s cold”

      Of course it doesn’t. It doesn’t hug me when I get cold either. But it’s not supposed to because it’s a scientific theory, not a puppy.

      Gravity asks for no commitment, no response, no feeling - but that doesn’t mean I should start doubting that it’s a real physical phenomenon does it?

      Evolution isn’t a religion. It’s not supposed to make you feel good or give you something to entrust your life in. It is simply a theory to explain things that we see in nature. Just like String theory, Gravity theory and the theory of Relativity.

      I know you don’t believe in evolution which is fine, but I do wish you’d stop talking as though it is something that it isn’t.

      ** Please Anne. If you genuinely care about the truth, then read this next section carefully because I want you to see where your understanding of evolution is skewed. I am not trying to convince you that evolution is an accurate theory, only that your understanding of it is flawed. **

      How do you think it is that we know as much as we do about our Sun? We’ve never been there and we’ve never sent anything inside of it, and yet we know a lot about it’s internal structure and can predict it’s behaviour very reliably.

      The reason is that we observe the Sun’s behaviour and, based on what we observe, create theories to explain why it behaves the way it does. We then use these theories to predict how the sun will behave and test them. If our predictions are wrong, then the theory gets abandoned or amended to include new information. But if it correctly predicts the real outcomes, then we start to build confidence in our theory.

      Over time more and more people make predictions with our theory and more and more people independently test those predictions until we have enough correct predictions that we can be confident that the theory correctly matches reality.

      Note, that doesn’t mean that our theories about the sun are proven correct and will never be proven wrong. But it does mean that until we see evidence which directly disagrees with our predictions, then we can be confident that the theory is sound.

      You should be aware that we understand evolution in more depth than we understand gravity, but nobody seems to doubt gravity!

      That is all evolution is. It is a theory to explain phenomena we observe in nature.

      - It is a fact that there are different species of animals on earth.
      - It is a fact that these species are well suited to their environment.
      - It is a fact that physical traits are passed down between generations
      - It is a fact that animals which are well suited to a given environment will be more likely to reproduce than animals which are not.

      Evolution is a theory which models how the above facts could have arisen out of natural processes. That’s all. It’s not an attempt to disprove god - it has no more interest in god than gravity. It’s not a philosophy to base your life around. It’s nothing to fear at all. It’s just the best natural explanation which has been currently devised to explain something that we see in nature. That doesn’t mean it will never be disproved, but for now it’s a sound theory.

      It is false to say that there is a controversy among scientists over evolution. The number of scientists who oppose the theory is absolutely miniscule compared to those to support it. Almost non-existent when you look only at biological scientists.

      It is false to say the theory of evolution has been disproved. There are unanswered questions, as with all sciences, but there is currently no evidence which renders the theory invalid.

      It is false to say that evolution has never been directly observed. Evolution - that is speciation - has been observed in nature (e.g. in ring migration) and also under lab conditions.

      Could a god be responsible rather than evolution? Yes - but there is no objective evidence to support that theory and it can’t be independently tested, so it’s not a useful scientific theory.

      I don’t care what you or anyone else believes. Of course you don’t need to agree that evolution is correct, whether is disagrees with your religion or not. All I am asking is for you to stop spreading misinformation about it. Simply say you don’t believe in it and leave it at that.

      If you are going to profess knowledge of evolution, then at-least have the decency and intellectual fortitude to hear both sides of the argument rather than only listening to those critical of it.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      11:27pm | 20/06/11

      Jake just like gravity I have experienced Jesus as my Lord and Saviour unlike gravity I have a relationship with Him that is real and fulfilling,  I feel His presence and hear His voice of Truth , He touches my heart with His Love,  He whispers words of encouragement to me and He hugs me,( will expline another day)  He is there for me when I need Him , but most of all He never let’s me down. I belieive in Him100% I have no doubts about Him and His goodness or what He tells me ....this is Faith God’s Faith .... Why would I want the theory of Evolution instead.

      Please don’t ever be mistaken Jake in thinking I do not know about Evolution and what it propagates,  it is not proven it is based on a Lie and that is the world and everything in it evolved from nothing,  God tells us the opposite and so does Science based on His Truth, by what you said you have no idea how many Scientist in the past and now support Creation as the Bible explains it and they have also proven it to be True, so both your changing theory of Evolution and Creation can’t be True and you guessed it,  I would rather believe in God The Creator then your god of Evolution that you worship and propagate.

      Jake gravity you can experience,  jump off a box and you will feel the impact on your feet,  go for a Bungy jump and you will feel yourself falling,  if you don’t believe in gravity or disregard it and so throw yourself of a high bridge you will fall to your death. You can or cannot believe in Evolution and it makes no difference, you can’t feel it,  it does not care if your loyal to it or not,  it doesn’t care if you disregard it completely,  it does not Love you or even care if you live or die,  it is empty and without substance ...

      But it does make a difference if you believe in God or not,  but then it is how you do,  Satan knows He is real also. 

      Sorry I did not get back to you sooner Jake,  I have been posting on another Topic and have also been in and out all day, it’s late now and I’m off to bed,  I’ll see you tomorrow if your posting again.

      Take Care ... If only you realised how much God Loves you Jake, IF ONLY YOU DID - Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      10:58am | 22/06/11

      “Why would I want the theory of Evolution instead”

      Why do you feel that you have to chose either one or the other and not both? According to the statistics that I posted for you earlier, most Christians accept evolution - it would seem that you’re the odd one out. Denying facts that can be observed because they disagree with your beliefs doesn’t make sense.

      “Jake gravity you can experience,  jump off a box and you will feel the impact on your feet,  go for a Bungy jump and you will feel yourself falling”

      Firstly, as I said previously, evolution has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory. Don’t take the fact that you haven’t personally seen it to mean that nobody else has. I’ll post you links to some of the many studies if you’d actually read them.

      Are you saying you only trust the science that you can directly experience? Have you experienced the slowing of time or the contraction of space due to relativity? Are you aware that if we did not allow for this, that GPS would not be possible?

      Have you ever watched an electron undergo the process of Quantum Tunneling? Nobody on earth has ever observed it happening - we do not have the technology - however if we did not understand this process then the tunneling electron microscope would not be possible.

      There are many scientific principles which we cannot directly observe but are predicted theoretically. It is how well these predictions mirror observation which defines quality of a given theory.

      Evolution is exactly the same as the examples above. It is a theory which was devised as a way to explain something which *anyone* can observe. The theory was used to make predictions and then these predictions were tested. As yet, the predictions of evolution have been remarkably accurate.

      “Please don’t ever be mistaken Jake in thinking I do not know about Evolution and what it propagates,  it is not proven it is based on a Lie and that is the world and everything in it evolved from nothing”

      For the last time, Anne:

      * Evolution does not state that anything evolved from nothing. *

      There you go again! You keep saying you know all about evolution but you obviously don’t know what evolution is. *This* is the misinformation I’m talking about. Evolution would certainly be highly dubious if it claimed that everything evolved from nothing, but it doesn’t say that at all.

      From Wikipedia:

      “Evolution is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.”

      That’s all it is. Why do you keep claiming that evolution says everything came from nothing? You keep saying that you won’t follow the links I give you because you “don’t read incorrect information” and yet it is you who have your facts wrong.

      And what is the “Lie” that you say evolution is based on?

      Is it a lie that different species exist?

      Is it a lie that physical traits are passed down from parents to children?

      Is it a lie that animals will be more likely to die if they are not well suited to their environment?

      Is it a lie that there are small, random differences between parents and their children?

      These are the facts that the theory of evolution is based on. They aren’t lies. Anybody can go out and see every one of these facts verified in nature if they want to.

      “your god of Evolution that you worship”

      Anne, you’re being ridiculous. Evolution is not my god. I don’t worship evolution any more than gravity or germs. You believe in gravity, does that mean you worship it?

      I simply accept that evolution is a solid theory, as I do with gravity, relativity, and the standard model of quantum physics. You have said again and again that it is false but the only justification you have given is that you can’t reconcile it with what you believe. That’s not very sound reasoning.

      If nothing else, will you at-least tell me that you understand that evolution does not claim that anything came from nothing? That would be a great leap forward for both of us.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:35pm | 22/06/11

      Hi Jake, yes I know that some Christians believe in Evolution but just as many don’t and those who do are not aware that they are rejecting God’s Truth in the Scriptures by doing so,  which Jake I can prove they are and have done so on other posts.

      So why do I believe you are claiming Evolution started from nothing,  You told me yourself that you didn’t know what caused the Big Bang that started Evolution,  to me you are saying that at this point you don’t have an answer for the birth of Evolution. But I have no doubts how Creation started.

      I don’t believe in Evolution as you understand it but I have always said that there are a few things that are taught by Evolutionists that agree with Creation but they confirm Creation not Evolution.

      I also believe in Science when it is in agreement with God’s Truth but when it propagates something that is calling God a Liar then sorry if this upsets you Jake but I reject it.

      To sum up… God said it,  I believe it,  and that settles it.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne

    • Jake says:

      12:28pm | 23/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      “yes I know that some Christians believe in Evolution but just as many don’t”

      No, according to the statistics, *most* christians (in the US) accept evolution and a minority do not. (Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx)

      “those who do are not aware that they are rejecting God’s Truth in the Scriptures by doing so,  which Jake I can prove they are and have done so on other posts.”

      No Anne. If you think this then you don’t understand the meaning of proof. You have shown that, by your interpretation of the bible, they cannot both be Christian and accept evolution. That is not proof of anything, only your opinion.

      “So why do I believe you are claiming Evolution started from nothing,  You told me yourself that you didn’t know what caused the Big Bang that started Evolution”

      Just because I do not know what happened prior to the big bang does not mean that I think everything came from nothing. It simply means that everything came from something which - as yet - we do not fully understand. It was almost certainly “something”, but as yet we don’t have a good theory as to exactly what it was.

      Do you fully understand exactly what is inside your computer? Does that mean you assume that your computer came from nothing?

      Either way, the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution does not require that the universe started with a Big Bang.

      In-fact Evolution could be applied to a world where the universe and even the first life was created by a god. Where evolution diverges from the literal interpretation of the bible is that the bible says all the animals were put here by god roughly in the form they are now, whereas the theory of evolution suggests all life started from the same place and the variety we see today emerged over time.

      The theory of evolution only describes the emergence of variety in life. It does not enter into where the life originally came from. That is a different branch of science.

      What you have said above indicates that it is the big bang theory that you disagree with. Nothing you have said there is incompatible with evolution.

      “I also believe in Science when it is in agreement with God’s Truth but when it propagates something that is calling God a Liar then sorry if this upsets you Jake but I reject it.”

      Yes you’re willing to believe in science and evidence until it disagrees with what you want to believe and then you reject it. That’s fine and I honestly have no issue with that. My problem is that you make claims about science that are incorrect.

      Let me ask you, would it be honest of me to say the following:

      “I don’t believe in christianity because it claims that humans were placed on earth by aliens from the planet Blarrgon.”

      That would be dishonest of me wouldn’t it? Because christianity doesn’t claim that we were put here by aliens.

      An uninformed reader might see a claim like that and believe it to be true and, as a result, decide that christianity is silly. That would be and unfair thing for me to do, both to christianity and to the hapless reader. But that is exactly what you are doing by saying evolution claims everything came from nothing.

      It’s one thing to choose not to believe in something, it’s another thing to justify that disbelief with misinformation and that is what you are doing.

      My only request to you is, and has always been, that you withdraw your claims about evolution which are untrue. Evolution does not claim that everything came from nothing and using that argument to debase evolution is dishonest.

    • WilliamK says:

      03:51pm | 22/06/11

      @Jake
      The theory of evolution is flawed for the following overiding consideration. At the risk of over simplifying a complex subject; the theory assumes the multiplication of DNA/genetic/chromosome type information as species supposedly evolve to become more sophisticated, for example algae….ape…...man and so on.

      However, the overwhelming evidence; again at the risk of over simplification, shows that as species multiply, the information of life (as above) deteriorates progressively, in the process fundamentally undermining the theory of evolution. For example, mutations are invariably genetically poorer than their parents.

      Evolution is an interesting theory that is increasingly struggling to stand against honest intellectual scrutiny; but it’s also gaining popular support as society desparately attempts to write God out of creation and history. However, it will all be to no avail.

    • Jake says:

      05:25pm | 22/06/11

      “the theory assumes the multiplication of DNA/genetic/chromosome type information as species supposedly evolve to become more sophisticated”

      “the overwhelming evidence…shows that as species multiply, the information of life (as above) deteriorates progressively”

      Do you intend to provide a source for either of these assertions? Or do I have to guess what you’re talking about and look it up for you?

      Evolution does not assume, require, nor suggest an increase in complexity or informational volume within the chromosome is necessary as it progresses. As with all other physical traits, complexity is a factor which can help or hinder survival in a given situation. The fact that we have “simple” life forms (e.g. single celled organisms) along side “complex ones” (e.g. humans) is evidence of this.

      In environments where complex organisms are best suited to survival, complex organisms have evolved and thrive. In environments where simple organisms are best suited to survival, simple organisms have evolved and thrive. This is what evolution predicts would happen and it does.

      That being said, Humans are far from having the most complex DNA of any life on earth with approximately 3 billion base pairs in our DNA. That title is currently held by the Paris Japonica plant which has approximately 150 billion base pairs (http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/paris-japonica-complex-dna/).

      The South American marbled lungfish has approximately 133 Billion base pairs giving it the most complex animal DNA found so far (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/scienceshot-biggest-genome-ever.html)

      If you are suggesting that complexity should not be able to increase over time (i.e. the entropy argument), then this is an argument which has been addressed and debunked a great many times since it was first posited in the 70s.

      I’m not sure if that is the argument you’re making so I won’t expand on it for now any further than to provide a link explaining the flaws in this assertion (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermo.htm).

    • WilliamK says:

      06:08pm | 22/06/11

      @Jake
      No ..no ...no Jake…...... I’m not going to let you off the hook so easily.

      Please explain how we got to complex organisms like man - top of the food chain. And a brief personal summary will suffice - I’m not looking for a Wikipedia link which I’m perfectly capable of looking up myself.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:19pm | 22/06/11

      Hi WilliamK,  I was just wondering when my Rice Bubbles go snap, crackle and pop does that mean they have more complex DNA/genetic/chromosome then me and if so should I eat them.

      But seriously I asked my dog Monty the other night what he thought about the Political situation in Jakarta,  but he just licked me, waged his tail and went back to sleep.

      So can you please explain to me William if Evolution is correct why no other species can talk as Humans can,  or did Apes evolve from Man and they communicate in a much more advanced and sophisticated way then we do.

      What’s a girl to do it’s all so confusing, so will I one day be a Ape ...Oh no have you seen the price of bananas ...by the way what is their complex DNA .......just a thought.

      Your Cheer-Leader Anne - I think Jake said I was child one though which must mean my complex DNA is not as high as his,  so perhaps he will be an Ape before I will.

    • Jake says:

      09:23am | 23/06/11

      @WilliamK
      “Please explain how we got to complex organisms like man - top of the food chain. And a brief personal summary will suffice - I’m not looking for a Wikipedia link which I’m perfectly capable of looking up myself.”

      Wow… An open-ended, poorly defined question from WilliamK. Didn’t see that coming.

      I’m happy to answer your questions. I have made that clear again and again. I find it beyond laughable that you of all people - who avoids every direct question asked of you - have the nerve to suggest you need to take *me* to task for avoiding a question.

      So what is it I need to explain for you now, William? How to tie your shoes? Where babies come from? If you want to know how evolution explains the emergence of complex species then go and read it. I’m not your wet nurse and I’m tired of looking up information for you, only to have you completely ignore it. Thousands of scientists have already done the millions of hours of work to understand and explain evolution to the point that even a dolt such as yourself should be able to wrap your head around it should you want to so I shan’t be wasting my own time trying to explain the entire phylogenetic progression of evolution from single-celled organisms to humans for you to simply ignore it and quote bible verses to me.

      If you’re perfectly capable to looking up a link yourself then look it up. Why do you need me to explain it for you? Evolution explains how we “got to complex organisms like man - top of the food chain” perfectly well. If you don’t think it does then I suggest that you tell me why so I can explain it for you like a child - which seems to be where any conversation with you or Anne ends up.

      So William I’m not letting *you* off the hook that easily. If you have questions about evolution, ask away and I will provide you the necessary information. If you can’t be bothered reading the information I provide then you will never understand the topic. You and Anne should run seminars - “How to debunk science without knowing what it is”.

    • Jake says:

      09:43am | 23/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      “I was just wondering when my Rice Bubbles go snap, crackle and pop does that mean they have more complex DNA/genetic/chromosome then me and if so should I eat them.”

      I would normally assume this was an attempt at humor but you have made it clear that you lack any understanding of even the simplest concepts so I’m guessing you actually believe this is a relevant question.

      “So can you please explain to me William if Evolution is correct why no other species can talk as Humans can,  or did Apes evolve from Man and they communicate in a much more advanced and sophisticated way then we do.”

      Anne, can you please explain to me why you think evolution suggests there should be more animals that talk like humans? It doesn’t.

      “What’s a girl to do it’s all so confusing”

      Just for you Anne. Most adults with a high-school education have no trouble understanding it. Maybe night school would help?

      “so will I one day be a Ape”

      Actually you’re already an ape. Our lineage traces back to the great apes, as does that of the modern Chimpanzee, Orangutan and Gorilla, so we’re all apes. That’s why 98.4% of human DNA is identical to Chimpanzee DNA - or do you assume that god made us so similar to chimps to save money on materials?

      “I think Jake said I was child one though which must mean my complex DNA is not as high as his”

      No Anne, our DNA is roughly the same, you just chose not to educate yourself. Evolution has nothing to do with your personal decision to embrace ignorance and blind faith over education and reason.

      I hope you’re aware that decrying a subject of which you have no knowledge at all is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty and is the primary reason why most people just laugh at your kind of opinions and ignore you.

    • WilliamK says:

      11:49am | 23/06/11

      @Jake
      As I guessed, you probably cannot find a suitable answer on Wikipedia??

      And you probably now realise the foundation on which evolution is based is fundementally flawed and does not stand up to honest scholarly scrutiny making the rest of the theory just interesting speculation.

      Psalm 14 v 1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

      That’s not name calling by God, it’s just an honest observation on the mental state of an unbeliever.

    • Jake says:

      12:35pm | 23/06/11

      “As I guessed, you probably cannot find a suitable answer on Wikipedia??”

      Of course I could. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

      Want some more? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#References

      There’s 282 references there, will that do?

      What on earth makes you think that my refusal to spoon-feed you information validates your assertions? The evidence and explanation for evolution is available to anyone who wants to read it. If you have a problem or disagreement with it then it is incumbent on you, not me, to explain why.

      Oh and look the bible says something about something. How relevant.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      11:52am | 23/06/11

      Yes Jake it was a joke I don’t really worry about D.N.A when I eat my Rice Bubbles do you? but thanks for what you added your humour really toped mine but not all humour is good, still sometimes it can indeed show our own frailties’ or others, but then sometimes it’s just for a laugh, all depends how we accept it.

      If you understood anything about D.N.A you would know that the difference in a Man’s blood compared to an Apes it makes the Lie of Evolution very apparent.

      As I shared with you before the Scriptures explained the different D.N.A between Man, animals , fish and birds, and this was two thousand years ago,  but before D.N.A was known by our Pathology today,  they transfused a Man with Ape’s blood believing it was compatible and he died. If they had known and understood the Scriptures this would not have happened.

      You have spent much time Jake in your posts putting me down as a person of worth and trying to make me look a fool, uneducated and ignorant, and yes you would no doubt think that everyone as the same opinion as you ...do you know what even if they do agree with you,  I don’t care because I know God’s Truth and that is what is important not your worldly knowledge,  it will all come to nothing as William said and the Scriptures confirm this to be True. But just so you know I will send a list of those who believe as William and I do, William of course has much more knowelage then I do,  I’m still learning,  but like Him what I know I have no doubts about that it is God’s Truth.

      Do you know what Nihilism is Jake…

      It’s a perception which exists widely among Western Nations because it inexorably springs and stems from Atheism. It is where Atheism leads in a philosophical sense. This is unfortunate because, as Christians, we know there is Purpose and Meaning; Hope and Joy in this life. It is not just wishful thinking to believe our lives are given purpose through Jesus Christs sacrifice…..

      Perhaps you would like to read more,  your choice… http://www.resistancethinking.com/Society/a-lesson-in-nihilism

      Take Care Anne

    • Jake says:

      01:08pm | 23/06/11

      “If you understood anything about D.N.A you would know that the difference in a Man’s blood compared to an Apes it makes the Lie of Evolution very apparent. “

      Care to explain “the difference between a Man’s blood compared to an Apes” which renders evolution incorrect?

      Evolution doesn’t suggest that human and ape blood should be the same. In-fact if our blood were that same as ape blood then that would be a strong reason to doubt evolution.

      That being said, our blood is quite similar to an ape’s blood. Not identical but fairly close. But our blood is quite different from dog blood and even more different than fish blood, exactly as evolution predicts.

      “As I shared with you before the Scriptures explained the different D.N.A between Man, animals , fish and birds, and this was two thousand years ago”

      No the bible explained that their “flesh” was different. “Flesh” is very different from DNA. Anybody can cut open a cow, and fish and a bird and see that the flesh is different. But it took science to realise that this difference was attributable to DNA.

      “do you know what even if they do agree with you,  I don’t care because I know God’s Truth and that is what is important not your worldly knowledge”

      This isn’t a popularity contest Anne. I don’t care how many people agree with you or how many agree with me. I care only about the volume of evidence which supports a given theory.

      As I have said several times, I don’t care whether you agree with a given theory or not. What I care about is that you are misrepresenting those theories.

      “Do you know what Nihilism is Jake…”

      Yes.

      “It’s a perception which exists widely among Western Nations because it inexorably springs and stems from Atheism. It is where Atheism leads in a philosophical sense. This is unfortunate”

      Why? I don’t believe that our life has any intrinsic, objective meaning and yet I’m happy, have a loving family, a clean record, good health and enjoy the awesome wonder of the universe as much, if not more than most. Nihilism isn’t a pejorative.

      “as Christians, we know there is Purpose and Meaning; Hope and Joy in this life. It is not just wishful thinking to believe our lives are given purpose through Jesus Christs sacrifice”

      I believe my life has meaning just like you do. But I decide what my purpose is in life. The choices that I have made in my time were my own. They weren’t done to appease some jealous creator or buy myself a seat in the afterlife (well… back in my church days they might have been). They were done because I decided they were the right hing to do.

      I’m confused as to why you would consider this to be unfortunate.

      Many people like to attach all kinds of negative connotations to Nihilism but the fact is morality and happiness aren’t a simple product of your philosophy on life. Christians have committed terrible acts as have Atheists. As I showed earlier, according to US statistics, you are more likely to end up in prison if you are a Christian than if you are an Atheist so claiming that Atheism or Nihilism lead to a lack of morals doesn’t really stand up.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:46pm | 23/06/11

      Hi Jake first you have not understood the Scriptuer about D.N.A and unless you change your focus you never will.

      In response to your statement that very few believe in Creation below is a list of Creationist Scientistst I had to use 3 posts,  sorry but there were too many. These Scientists both past and present all believe in Creation and have researched it and on another post are those who are holding Science Doctorates, I haven’t included the many Ministers and other Christians who also agree with Creation ...This is no popularity contest it is hard facts.

      I have also added a Link on last post.

      Partial list of Creationist scientists
      (past and present)
      600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned Master’s degree in a recognized area of Science).

      150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

      (Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

      Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
      Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
      Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
      Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
      Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
      Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
      Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
      Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
      Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
      David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
      Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) 
      Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
      Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
      Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
      Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)

      To be continued on my next post…......

    • Jake says:

      12:18am | 26/06/11

      @Anne Stocks
      “In response to your statement that very few believe in Creation”

      There you go putting words in my mouth again. I didn’t say “very few believe in creation”. What I said, Anne, was that the majority of christians in the US accept evolution - More US christians accept evolution than don’t. I provided you the source of the statistic so unless you’re can invalidate that source or provide a source that says a majority of christians *don’t* accept evolution, then I don’t think there’s much more to discuss.

      So you found a list of 600+ scientists who believe in creation huh? Isn’t that just amazing… You know if there were about 1200 scientists in the world, that would mean a majority of scientists believe in creationism huh? Oh hang on… There’s a few more than 1200 aren’t there?

      According to a 1991 Gallup Poll, there were roughly 700 scientists with accredited qualifications who believed in creationism out of roughly….. 480,000 US scientists. (Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)

      Lets see… 700 out of 480,000… That’s about 0.15%. Gee that sounds a lot less impressive now doesn’t it Anne?

      Posting a list of 600 scientists who endorse creationism is a truly laughable attempt to justify your position Anne. In-fact there was a group who ridiculed this style of popularist argument by creating a list only of currently living scientists who were named Steve who endorsed evolution and they came up with 220. That’s more than a third of your list of every scientist you could scrape together *past and present* who endorsed creationism (Source: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve-press-release).

      The fact is that if you wanted to see the full list of scientists who endorsed evolution and disagree with creationism, not even including the past, you would need more comments than have been posted so far in response to this article.

      So you’ve tried to find evidence to back your position and failed. You’ve tried simply lying about evolution and what it means and that doesn’t seem to have gotten you anywhere. Now you’ve tried the good old appeal to popularity and, once again, failed dismally.

      What do you have in store for us next, Anne? Maybe blame evolution for the Nazis? Perhaps you can find a verse in the bible that says evolution causes cancer? Evolution is the reason I can’t get this stain out of my carpet? I just can’t wait!

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:47pm | 23/06/11

      Continued Creationist Scientists ...

      Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
      Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
      Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
      Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
      Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
      Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
      John Grebe (chemist)
      Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
      William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
      George F. Howe (botanist)
      D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) 
      James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
      Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
      John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) 
      Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) 
      Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
      Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
      Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
      Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
      Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
      James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
      Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
      Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
      Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
      Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
      Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
      Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
      William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
      John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
      Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
      Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
      James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
      Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
      George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
      Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
      William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
      Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
      Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
      Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
      A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
      A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
      John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

      A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today’s atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

      To be continued - Creationists holding Science Doctorates

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:49pm | 23/06/11

      Creationists holding Science Doctorates (partial list, in alphabetical order)
       
      Agard, E. Theo
      Allan, James
      Anderson, Kevin
      Armstrong, Harold
      Arndt, Alexander
      Austin, Steven
      Barnes, Thomas
      Batten, Don
      Baumgardner, John
      Bergman, Jerry
      Boudreaux, Edward
      Byl, John
      Catchpoole, David
      Chadwick, Arthur
      Chaffin, Eugene
      Chittick, Donald
      Cimbala, John
      Clausen, Ben
      Cole, Sid
      Cook, Melvin
      Cumming, Ken
      Cuozzo, Jack
      Darrall, Nancy
      Dewitt, David
      DeYoung, Donald
      Downes, Geoff
      Eckel, Robert
      Faulkner, Danny
      Ford, Dwain
      Frair, Wayne
      Gentry, Robert
      Giem, Paul
      Gillen, Alan
      Gish, Duane
      Gitt, Werner
      Gower, D.B.
      Grebe, John
      Grocott, Stephen
      Harrub, Brad
      Hawke, George
      Hollowell, Kelly
      Holroyd, Edmond
      Hosken, Bob
      Howe, George
      Humphreys, D. Russell
      Javor, George
      Jones, Arthur
      Kaufmann, David
      Kennedy, Elaine
      Klotz, John
      Koop, C. Everett
      Korochkin, Leonid
      Kramer, John
      Lammerts, Walter
      Lester, Lane
      Livingston, David
      Lopez, Raul
      Marcus, John
      Marsh, Frank
      Mastropaolo, Joseph
      McCombs, Charles
      McIntosh, Andrew
      McMullen, Tom
      Meyer, Angela
      Meyer, John
      Mitchell, Colin
      Morris, Henry
      Morris, John
      Mumma, Stanley
      Parker, Gary
      Peet, J. H. John
      Rankin, John
      Rosevear, David
      Roth, Ariel
      Rusch, Wilbert
      Sarfati, Jonathan
      Snelling, Andrew
      Standish, Timothy
      Taylor, Stephen
      Thaxton, Charles
      Thompson, Bert
      Thomson, Ker
      Vardiman, Larry
      Veith, Walter
      Walter, Jeremy
      Wanser, Keith
      Whitcomb, John
      White, A.J.(Monty)
      Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
      Wile, Jay
      Williams, Emmett
      Wise, Kurt
      Wolfrom, Glen
      Zuill, Henry

      (Names are continually being added. If you would like to submit a Scientist, please contact us.)

      Recommended Resource: - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:50am | 24/06/11

      You no doubt agree Jake that we should not Murder but what is the difference in killing a sheep or a person and who says it is wrong to kill someone if we feel like it .

      How did the Law originate who set the boundaries in the first place?

      Kind regards Anne.

    • Jake says:

      12:24am | 26/06/11

      Well Anne it’s lucky I have a slightly more thought-out view on morality than you or there would be dead people all over my neighbourhood wouldn’t there?

      The reason I don’t kill people is because I have a respect for life. I, like most sane people, empathise with others and I don’t like to see anyone suffer unnecessarily so I do not willingly or unnecessarily cause suffering to others.

      Do you really think the only reason not to cause suffering is because god said not to? Because if you do, then that’s a pitiful excuse for morality.

      I don’t do harm to others because I care for others, not because I’m afraid that some jealous, vengeful deity will punish me if I don’t.

    • WilliamK says:

      11:20am | 24/06/11

      @Jake
      “There’s 282 references there, will that do?”

      You don’t seem able to provide an answer to my question Jake??? Wikipedia letting you down?

      Evolution relies on genetic information gain for macro change. Overwhelmingly empirical evidence shows genetic deterioration as species multiply over time.

      Evolution is based upon genetic information gain at the point of first “occurrence” (creation). There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to show life being created from “non life” material.

      The whole foundation for the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed. In fact, it’s a theory based on a deck of cards….. : )

      And you suck it all in because Wikipedia says so.

      But in this blog you claim expertise in deductive reasoning. But there’s a whole lot of stuff you have thought through clearly yet Jake. Maybe you are suppressing the truth.

    • Jake says:

      12:42am | 26/06/11

      “Evolution relies on genetic information gain for macro change. “

      No it does not. As I explained, informational volume does not need to increase as evolution progresses. Neither is there any scientific reason why it can’t.

      I provided you examples of species other than humans - both animal and plant - which have significantly more information in their DNA than humans do. I also provided you a like explaining the flaws in the entropy argument. I’m not sure what more you want. Your assertion has been rebutted with evidence - and I didn’t even use wikipedia.

      “Evolution is based upon genetic information gain at the point of first “occurrence” (creation). There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to show life being created from “non life” material.”

      Oh you’ve gotta be kidding me… Not you too! I expect this kind of thing from Anne but to be honest, I expected better from you WilliamK.

      Evolution does not - in any way, shape or form - either directly or indirectly - state, imply or suggest, that life must have arisen from non-life.

      EVOLUTION IS A THEORY TO EXPLAIN THE EMERGENCE OF VARIETY IN LIVING THINGS. IT DOES NOT ENTER INTO HOW THAT LIFE ORIGINATED.

      The topic of life emerging spontaneously is Abiogenisis, not evolution. I’d provide you a link to read about it but I think we both know I’d be wasting my time.

      Do you ever stop for just a few seconds and ask yourself if you should really be pushing your opinion on a subject like evolution when you don’t even know what the theory is?

      “Maybe you are suppressing the truth.”

      OH NO! YOU’RE ON TO ME! CALL THE PRESIDENT OF SCIENCE, I’VE BEEN COMPROMISED!

      Like you’re one to suggest *I’m* suppressing the truth. You claim evolution is false because you it teaches something that it doesn’t even teach. You’re either ignorant or a liar.

      Either way, I have no clue what makes you think anyone is interested in your uneducated dribble on subjects you have no understanding of. But that never seems to stop you holy rollers does it? I’m beginning to wonder if you and Anne are the same person.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:28pm | 26/06/11

      Jake, what makes you think I’m afraid of God, I Love Him passionately meaning with every part of me….my Heart ( emotions and feelings) my Brain ( Intelligence,  Logic and reason )  my Body,  all my physical attributes, I don’t use them for evil and my Soul….. in other words all my being.

      I also respect Him and esteem Him,  He is Awesome in all His ways and He is Love and Love can do no evil. I obey Him because I Love Him not because I’m frightened of Him.

      The Scriptures tell us to respect God or revere Him which is the Hebrew meaning of fear,  it is not what many think. But yes we will experience fear if we have not been perfected in His Love,  it is how He created us which means when we live in opposition to God’s will,  we feel fear within and this has to do with punishment, the two go together,  the same as when we live according to God’s will, we experience good feelings and have Hope and inner Joy.

      Jake you haven’t explained how Evolution first started and what they suggest has never been proven. As for the Big bang it’s the same as Evolution no proof and regardless of what name you give them they are both claiming the same thing that God is not The Creator so they are Deception.

      Tomorrow someone may decide to kill you Jake, so why is it wrong,  just because you wouldn’t kill anyone who gives you the right to put your preferences onto someone else your not their Father.

      What about the Law where did it originate in the first place ? you haven’t answered.

      Some primitive tribes kill and eat each other, they don’t see anything wrong with that .... it’s the quick or the dead .... so what’s wrong with that what makes you think your moral code is better then theirs after all as you claim we all come from slime developing into organic molecules, so why Jake do you think you have the best organic molecules and everyone must think as you do.  The Government have legalised Abortion it grieves me to know how many Babies are slaughtered a year and this is Murder,  they now want to legalise euthanasia,  which is suicide,  tomorrow perhaps it will be ok to kill your Mother in Law if she presents problems or the disabled because their a burden on Society and so on…. why not Jake,  just because you or I don’t agree.

      Jake it was never my intention to convince you that God is a reality because even if I did someone could come along and convince you He is not again , what I have tried to show you which is the same as William is your reasoning and Logic does not have a firm foundation and never did. So having come to realise this you will search for the Truth and find a personal relationship with your Heavenly Father who Loves you deeply. He is the Father you never knew except as a confused little boy,  He heard your prayer then and He will hear your prayer now,  He has been waiting for you.

      For now Jake I would like to say goodbye I won’t be responding to your posts or even be reading them anymore but I want to leave you with a Link it is perhaps the most important Truth I can offer you and also my e-mail address,  I’m not saying you have to use either but they are a gift in case you are searching for your Heavenly Father if not now in the Future.

      Take Care,  I will be praying for you - Kind regards Anne.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIspSTEHM2U&feature=related

      anne.stocks @ yahoo.com.au

    • Jake says:

      01:09pm | 28/06/11

      “Jake you haven’t explained how Evolution first started and what they suggest has never been proven.”

      I’m getting so sick of answering the same question over and over again for you Anne. You’re either too stupid to understand the answer or you’re just ignoring it. Either way, I’m not answering it again. If you can’t wrap your head around the difference between a theory of origin and a theory of progression, then I’m afraid I can’t help you.

      “As for the Big bang it’s the same as Evolution no proof”

      There is plenty of evidence for the big bang. I’ve explained it in my own words and provided you several links to web pages which explain it in detail. You were too lazy to read any of it so I’m not wasting any more of my time explaining it to you.

      Be aware that your own refusal to do any basic research has nothing to do with the veracity of the theory. It just means your input on the subject is worthless.

      “regardless of what name you give them they are both claiming the same thing that God is not The Creator so they are Deception.”

      If you say so Anne.

      “Tomorrow someone may decide to kill you Jake, so why is it wrong,  just because you wouldn’t kill anyone who gives you the right to put your preferences onto someone else your not their Father.”

      It’s called society. No society could exist for long if people were able to indiscriminately kill each other. It is in the practical interests of everyone to maintain laws to protect individuals from the actions of others. I don’t know why I’m explaining this to you since you simply ignore it and attribute to god.

      Laws predate christianity. Prohibition of murder pre-dates christianity. The reason is because even back then, people were - unlike you - smart enough to realise that letting people murder and steal from others did not make for a good society.

      “What about the Law where did it originate in the first place ? you haven’t answered.”

      Which law? Do you mean law in general? It pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years. Maintaining a civil society wasn’t invented by christians, Anne.

      “For now Jake I would like to say goodbye I won’t be responding to your posts or even be reading them anymore”

      I’ll bet you’re reading this right now Anne… Hi!

    • WilliamK says:

      02:07pm | 27/06/11

      @Jake
      “No it does not. As I explained, informational volume does not need to increase as evolution progresses.”

      So how did we get to the current information scenario - the information of life that is - (also bearing in mind that it took years to map the human genome, a vast three dimensional information system)?

      Neither is there any scientific reason why it can’t.

      Yet there is no empirical evidence whatsoever. Another baseless claim from another Wikipedia fanatic.

      “IT DOES NOT ENTER INTO HOW THAT LIFE ORIGINATED.”

      Evolution is based on a premise (call it what you like) that life erupted spontaneously from non-life. You’re ignoring the point by being pedantic
      on semantics so as not to answer the question. You think you’re being clever continiously resorting to a red herring strategy. You’re only kidding yourself. Admit that you cannot answer the question.

    • Jake says:

      12:55pm | 28/06/11

      “Yet there is no empirical evidence whatsoever. Another baseless claim from another Wikipedia fanatic.”

      Yet another baseless claim from someone who has never even bothered to check if what they say is actually supported by evidence. Speciation has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory (Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).

      Regardless, an inability to directly observe a process does not mean that the theory behind it is unsound. Quantum tunneling cannot currently be directly observed and is predicted theoretically, yet without it the tunneling electron microscope would not be possible.

      “Evolution is based on a premise (call it what you like) that life erupted spontaneously from non-life.”

      No it is not! The initial emergence of life, be it by Abiogenisis, Panspermia, act of god or other processes is not within the realm of the theory of evolution. If you’re going to criticise a theory, at-least have the intelligence to know what the theory is first.

      “You’re ignoring the point by being pedantic on semantics so as not to answer the question. You think you’re being clever continiously resorting to a red herring strategy. You’re only kidding yourself. Admit that you cannot answer the question.”

      Semantics? How dense are you? You are plain and simply wrong. If you want to debate abiogenisis then do it, but don’t start claiming that other theories which aren’t anything to do with the emergence of life on earth are invalid because of it. Abiogenesis is a field without anywhere *near* the evidential support of evolution. As a result, there is far more debate among scientists on that subject than on evolution.

      You’re either too lazy or stupid to even try to get a basic understanding of the theory that you are arguing against and you expect me to defend claims that it doesn’t even make? What planet are you from?

      What is your question anyway? Do I believe life could emerge spontaneously? I haven’t studied the evidence enough to make a very confident call one way or the other but based on what little I have read, I’m inclined to believe it could. You suggestion that it impossible due to information increasing belies a complete misunderstanding of thermodynamics and the term “closed system”.

      In any case, this has absolutely nothing in any way shape or form to do with evolution.

      “So how did we get to the current information scenario - the information of life that is”

      Evolution! Where additional information in the genome resulted in beneficial physical characteristics, probability resulted in those traits being maintained in the population. For a more detailed explanation of the process, feel free to read one of the many links I’ve provided you.

      If it were necessary that the progression of evolution required an increase in information density within the genome, then *all* forms of life would need to become increasingly complex as time went on. However what we actually see is that some become more complex, some remain the same and some lose complexity over generations. It is all dependent on what is most beneficial for reproduction in the current environment.

      If you want to discuss evolution, then at-least read what the theory states. Until you do that you’re just babbling the same uninformed and ignorant nonsense as Anne.

    • WilliamK says:

      07:10pm | 28/06/11

      @Jake
      I have no problem with speciation or mutation. Both are better explained by the loss of DNA information from the parent.

      “Do I believe life could emerge spontaneously? I haven’t studied the evidence enough to make a very confident call one way or the other but based on what little I have read, I’m inclined to believe it could.”

      It’s interesting that you would rather exercise blind faith and believe something so outrageous/controversial without doing much “reading”.  And you have vigourously defended a theory that is presuppositionally flawed.

      “Evolution! Where additional information in the genome resulted in beneficial physical characteristics”

      Okay lets put it into perspective. The human DNA is a colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion “letters”. Man has not created/built anything nearly as complex as the most simplest of life forms, namely the virus.

      Only blind faith would allow anyone to believe that an accumulation of this magnitude of information was coincidental, without a plan, without a purpose.

      But is it blind faith, or a case of suppressing the truth. The proof that Jesus Christ walked the earth and claimed to be God, and demonstrated that he is God, is overwhelming.

      My faith is based on proven facts, not Wikipedia and theories, and speculation, supposedly supported by some doggy “science” with spin.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@MelanieTait I was thinking the same thing!

Malcolm Farr

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter