So if we act in accordance with the Gospels, then the Gospels must be true, because we act in accordance with them -- not TRUE true, of course, but just truthily true. Sort of true-ish, to paraphrase Jonathan Miller.

Or perhaps Dr. McCoy: "It's truth, Jim, but not as we know it."

Honestly, Peter, do you try this stuff out on your parishioners first? Do they manage to avoid bursting out laughing? They must have iron self-control.

Oh, and by the way, it's "Hobbes", not "Hobbs", and "whether", not "wether". You must be spending too much time with your flock.

Just because your faith has become indistinguishable from atheism, that's no reason to abandon orthographics too.

>> "When we dispense with the old argument about the existence of God as supernatural being and begin to understand that *God is truth* then we can make some progress. God is the truth expressed in the life and teaching of Jesus and death of Nazareth. As truth, God does not require supernatural being because truth speaks for itself." <<

The "truth" claims are a major point of contention, Peter. A major 'sticking point'.

The misleading assertion of "God is truth" is often classically conflated with "the life and teaching of 'Jesus' and death of Nazareth" (sic).

All the classic 'teachings' about the alleged life, teachings, and death 'Jesus of Nazareth' are from, and about, the supernatural - the son of God - as highlighted by Galatians 1, Mark 1, etc.

You can't have it both ways - sometimes proposing a human basis for the faith, yet sometimes proposing a supernatural basis - to propose a human Jesus is a classic Christian heresy! Moreover, there has been an ongoing search for an historical human Jesus for over 200 years - one has not been found.

"that Christian faith has content" is increasingly being dissected and criticised.

The problem with starting an article with a false premise, is that the only direction it can then take is inexorably downhill.

"It is a great pity that the new atheists are so fixated on a futile question: the existence of a God as immaterial supernatural being."

Pure baloney. It is the religious who are fixated on the existence of God. It features nowhere in atheism. The whole point of atheism (why is this so difficult for some to understand?) is the absence of belief in a supreme being.

More confusion:

"It would be far more productive if the debate about the existence of God were directed towards whether the gospel was true"

For theists, this might well be accurate. But in no sense does it involve atheists.

There is no "debate", Mr Sellick.

I know that you would like there to be, and can understand why it is important to you. But belief is a purely binary position. Do you believe, yes or no? You say yes. I say no. You don't have to prove your position to me, nor I to you.

You can justify your stance with a firm belief in the words of the Bible. I can justify mine with a categoric dismissal of their claims to divinity. Your search for "evidence" starts and ends with your view on the message that the Bible carries. I need no such evidence for my views, as they are firmly founded on precisely the lack of evidence.

And before you waffle on about the "evidence that the gospel is true cannot be tested by scientific means", I totally accept that. But if your evidence is "the quality of the community that arises out of that revelation", then you need to remind yourself of the many Christian communities that have spent so many generations killing each other, and perpetuating a culture of violence in the name of their "saviour".

There would be a few more working kneecaps in Belfast if the quality of their community had been less influenced by their "encounter with the crucified and risen Christ."

As an atheist I do not set out to prove god does not exist. I do not set out to prove unicorns do not exist either.
I have grown weary of people who have not taken time to learn what atheists motives are, making assumptions based on their best guess which is usually over-run with bias.
There simply is no proof of a god. Anyone who tries to gain knowledge about life from the bible is likely to become bi-polar. The bible contradicts itself time and time again.I find it funny that a person can only get the 'valuable' lessons taught by the bible when there is someone pointing out what a valuable lesson is and what should be disregarded or has been "taken out of context".
I remain unimpressed my the bible in any way except as the author mentioned, a work of art. Still if it were displayed as such I would not find myself paying much more attention to it than I would a Dr Seuss book....

Pericles and Reap

Well said. My view entirely

I think I can save Peter some trouble, so in the spirit of amicable co-operation, let me hereby announce the existence of my new deity, Frazz. Like Peter's God, Frazz goes nowhere, does nothing and speaks to nobody. But unlike Peter's God, Frazz doesn't have an embarrassing back-story of genocide and family issues for atheists and other non-Christians to pick awkward holes in.

Feel free to switch allegiance, Peter. And while you're at it, do you think I could get a gig for five hundred words on OO about the awesomeness of Frazz -- who is, after all, a deity no less plausible than your own?

It's continually amusing to hear atheists claiming the rational high ground and then proceeding to act as though ridicule were a substitute for intelligent discourse.

On this article, I had the same reaction as I often do when reading Sellick- sometimes I'd be nodding along, but soon after I'd be shaking my head saying "What?".

I have read numerous articles of his and still don't think I fully appreciate or understand his theology. Still, I welcome his contributions to OLO. The same cannot be said of many of the atheists around here. Some are sensible contributors, but unfortunatly many are not.

Perhaps Trav, it's because we see nothing rational in any argument the theists make. Remember there have been hundred of different gods that have been prayed to throughout history and they have all been believed in by their protagonists. They can't all be right. Most religions are accepted and ingrained during formative years and so generally speaking it becomes a geographical accident by way of where one is born.The philosophy is often good but I have trouble believing the mythology and superstition that goes with it.

Perhaps the atheists should seriously consider real questions such as these. Which are very much the same kind of childhood stories that are associated with the stories that we tell our children about "jesus".

How does the tooth fairy know when any and every particular child puts a pulled tooth out in anticipation of the tooth fairy's visit? And of course what does the tooth fairy do with all of those teeth?

How does Santa manage to visit every house in the world in a period of 24 hours? How does he gain entry into houses which do have chimneys? How does he know which gifts to give every particular child? Where does he keep his reindeer, and what kind of breeding program does he have in place to replace the reindeers that inevitably die? Or perhaps they are somehow immortal?

How does the Easter rabbit manage to produce so many Easter eggs especially as rabbits do not lay eggs, especially ones covered in colored silver foil. And why chocolate "eggs", especially as chocolate
"eggs" did not exist when this folk tradition emerged.

Does "jesus" also save ducks? Especially black ones with attitude!

Oh - and I forgot! Does "jesus" save postage stamps too?

"On this article, I had the same reaction as I often do when reading Sellick- sometimes I'd be nodding along, but soon after I'd be shaking my head saying "What?"."

The you go, Trav, a point of agreement - though you probably won't be surprised if I say I'm unlikely to have nodded as often as you. Plus my headshaking tends more to the "What the…?"

The recent references to Karl Barth (which I have followed up) were most instructive - even if my take-home lesson is that it is some of the strangest religious nonsense I've ever read.

I've rewritten the subheading though: It is a pity that Anglican deacons are not fixated on the question of the existence of a God.

Futile was elided because I'm trying to play nice.

Less nice, but funnier for those who know the pronunciation, would be the opinion that it is like receiving a theology lesson from 'Barth' Simpson – but not as satisfying.

If a fundamentalist atheist was honest about their own depravity then they could admit the obvious that they are sinners. They would then admit they need forgiveness (obvious to any truth seeker). Instead they look to men who study boring topics and spend their lives trying to fit their observations into clearly failed theory such as evolution. Looking at the historic and resurrected Christ would just highlight how empty and bereft their moral relativism is. The rotten fruits of this stinking thinking is highlighted throughout history non more so than today. Atheism is more about justifying hollow sinful lifestyles than science or anything else for that matter. That is why Christ the giver of life is the predominant target for their cynicism and mockery. Occasionly Mohammed or Buddha might get a mention just to 'prove' impartiality but just read the hundreds of posts over years and denial is written all over them. No doubt people left as hollow and unenlightened as they were before they forked out their fees. They will however feel that little bit more smug as to their non need of a Saviour. Pathetic really!

If you're an internet atheist and you think it is legitimate to compare Jesus Christ with the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, then you are merely providing positive proof that you are not the rational thinker that you claim to be.

That's all you're doing, people. You're just telling everyone a lot about yourself. You're telling us you are not a rational thinker. If you want to provide us biographical information, at least make it interesting next time. Tell us what you did on the weekend

Trav - On what basis do you presume that I am an atheist? Because I made fun of your naive pieties!

The point of my comments was to show how the essay by Sells is completely irrational and entirely absurd.
The only thing real about "jesus" is the shape of the word on a page or computer screen, and the sound you make when you say or use the word.

Substitute the name word RALPH for "jesus" and "god" and you might begin to see how absurd and arbitrary our brain created language games really are.

In the "beginning" (whenever and wherever that was) RALPH "created" the world.

Everything else is a naive childish, even infantile presumption, a mass of silliness. All of which complete disappears every night when "you" enter the state of deep formless and dreamless sleep, and are thus relieved of the stress of having to deal with the essential horror of this death saturated world.

peter/quote...""by its nature...a question that resists solution because by positing an entity..in the world""

an entity..which has many validations
[the personal good sustaining life..[science cant claim naturs nurture]

.."""any discussion..must be according to
the precepts of scientific reason,..i.e. it is evidence based.""

nice folks
but decieved..by a bad theory

just like they cant concieve a greater good [god]

hey guys im with you
better no church...than one serving the ignorance

we KNOW*..energy can be created nor destroyed

so here is a link...to what happens next
[ie what the church should be teaching]
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13287

here is what happend to sir laurence[of arabia]..at his death
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13286

here is what happend to the 'dead' from the titanic
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13310

here is a photo
of the greater 'he-aven/he-ll'
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13311

lets bbe brave
present our kids the full facts

too many lie to them as it is
who to trust[one good grace/mercy]

your inner god
spoil you..spoil god

but its so much better when you see the good..in other
and decide to heck with it..im going to try to love other

>>That's all you're doing, people. You're just telling everyone a lot about yourself. You're telling us you are not a rational thinker.<<

But your faith in the good lord Jesus Christ specially blesses you with the gift of reason? I think you might be stretching the truth there Trav. So let's see your rational proof of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. This should be good.

Cheers,

Tony

"But your faith in the good lord Jesus Christ specially blesses you with the gift of reason? I think you might be stretching the truth there Trav"

Tony, why are you putting words into my mouth for me?

"So let's see your rational proof of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. This should be good".

What's your definition of "rational proof"?

If you mean "an argument that should convince all rational people", then there is clearly no rational proof of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. But I don't know anyone who claims that there is, and I don't know of any reason why we should expect such a thing, so that doesn't tell us much, does it?

So I gather that you are an Anglican deacon but accept neither the Apostles' nor Nicean creeds. If you accept that there can be no evidence of an immaterial god, and posit no material god, you are not "on the side of the atheists" - you are one! Atheists, as atheists, have no interest in the specifics or generalities of the Christian religion any more than any other. The issue that defines and limits atheism is simply the belief in supernatural beings.

I do not think that any educated person denies the Bible is a great literary and ethical work, but without the endorsement of a god it simply falls into the category of historical works with an ethical content, of which there are many from Sumerian times, through Cicero, to the present.

While I personally find your beliefs quite attractive, they are hardly those espoused by your Church or Christians in general, these according greater literal truth to the Bible. As an professing atheist your position would seem rather awkward, although I appreciate the Anglican Church has a very illiteral form of Christianity.

Finally, why in these discussions is the Bible the only religious work referred to - what about the Koran, the Vedas and the Tripitaka (among many others)of equal interest. Given your idiosyncratic definition of truth, it will equally be present in these.

Dear Peter,

You are indeed up to something here:

The obsession with questions of existence is essentially a modern phenomena. Existence is the domain of science and is indispensable for engineering, but as you correctly observed, it has no bearing on religion or faith. Historically, those churches which attempted to "prove" God's existence in order to increase their influence, fell into the temptation of materialism and have only themselves to blame for the repercussions of trespassing into science's domain.

The idea that "God is a supernatural being", or indeed the idea that God should be a being of any sort at all, is an affront to God, attempting to diminish Him to the stature of existence.

I would like to reword your worthy question:

"whether the gospel is true, is whether the sayings of Jesus and the import of his acts and death are true. “True” in that they are ultimately important for us to see ourselves as we are and as we might be"

What we truly are, is God! That is what's ultimately important for us to see and know ourselves as, so the question becomes:

"Does the gospel lead us to realize the Truth, that we are God?"
"Does the gospel help us connect and ultimately unite with God?"
"Is the gospel religious?"

Excellent, keep up the good work and may God continue to lead your steps!

Peter, I don't recall seeing you there at the conference on the weekend and would have been overjoyed if you had attended. Had you been there you would have noticed that there was virtually no fixation on the question of the existence of a god or gods (Is this question ever addressed at your church?).

Atheists already accept that, without evidence, there is actually no god, only material reality. The purpose of gathering together in these kinds of forums is to discuss the widespread negative repercussions that ignorance and superstitious beliefs have on human existence. Should you wish to become a "virtual attendee" I would be glad to send you a copy of the DVD when it is released. You can then comment from a position of knowledge rather than ill-informed assumptions.

If I'm wrong and you were actually there then you weren't listening.

(David Castles....aka Priscillian)

It is my opinion that theists and atheists alike should simply get on with the task of living and contributing to our society. Just as Mr Sellick questions the worth of atheists fixating on proving that God does not exist, one can easily point the same finger at theists who fixate on proving that God does exist. There are some in both camps for whom these accusations are fair and accurate; there are others - I suspect the vast majority - for whom they are inaccurate and unfair distractions.

Perhaps there is a place in the world of science for the examination of the notion of God. Perhaps it belongs in psychology instead. The reality is that most who enter into the argument have no proof, largely because neither case can be proven absolutely (with our current knowledge base).

In the meantime, those who are undoubtedly well-intentioned theists waste their time trying to prove that God exists rather than doing His work. And some atheists who are equally well-intentioned do exactly the same (well, the opposite, really).

If there is a God, I doubt he is a God of scholars and academia. He is a God of the people, whose welfare he aims to protect. Mindless squabbling distracts from this.

If there is no God, then our lives are dictated by what WE believe is best for our society - ultimately, protecting our own welfare. Surely, then, we have common goals and are divided only by a point that cannot be determined with certainty?

Perhaps it's time for the theists to go about living good lives and praying quietly for the atheists to achieve some sort of enlightenment, and for the atheists to go about living good lives and smiling with amusement at the theists' quaint views. We could get a lot more done in a spirit of cooperation.

Fair enough Otokonoko, Let us start co-operating by requiring the enormously wealthy churches pay tax like the rest of us and give back all the land donated by the state over the last 200 years.

That's a fair enough argument, Priscillian. I've expressed my views on taxation of churches elsewhere on this forum, in threads actually related to the topic. You might actually agree with them. I think it's a bit of a red herring here, though.

newtus..""The issue that defines..and limits atheism
is simply the belief..in supernatural beings.''

i know god is seeable...in nature[thats gods nature/natural=god

this SUPER*natural..
what is this..vast unseen..'super nature*..
that both 'defines and limits..the athiest?

[the nurture's inherant in nature
/good life/living/grace mercy charity]

david/priscillan/quote..""Had you been there
you would have noticed..that there was virtually no fixation""

lol

""on the question of the existence..of a god or gods
(Is this question ever addressed..at your church?)....""

no athiests doings
are like children saying dumb things..in ignorance

""there is actually no god,
only material reality.""

says the blind man in a dark mind[room]
just before the dawn..[looking with closed mind as well as closed weyes]

god[life/love/logic/grace/mercy
are all arround us...explain them..[but you cant]
just like evolution is a neat lie..till it comes to 'lol'..evolving a new genus

somehow..nature/nurture=supra nurture..dun it
but science cant do it...lol

science is deciete[like placebo affect]
sometthing the mindless can believe[without studying too much]

the faithfull..trusting in nurds
faith in science=athiest..as in bassed in theory
you lot should rightfully be atheorists

"""The purpose...widespread negative repercussions
that ignorance and superstitious beliefs have on human existence.""

lok at your own delusions first!
EXPLAIN EVOLUTION INTO NEW GENUS
or stand recvealed..your weak faith..in a theo-ry

""You can then comment..from a position of knowledge
rather than ill-informed assumptions.""

your mates..THEY DONT GOT PROOF NEITHER*
evolution [of genus]; macro evolution..is fraud!

your own inability to explain...refutes ya own claim..to science

failing to present proof
lol..your taking your..faithlessness...on faith
you dont know..they dont know...so what do you know[or rather WHAT CAN YOU PROVE!?]

nuthin*
just blind athiestic faithlessness...spoiled children
letting peers..think for you![irony noted][but mindles sheep follow any new belief..[its the latest fashon]..

in time more will demand PROOF of concept..
not just clever wurds

[as they mislead gods children
away from the father]

Under One god,
This question of "evolving a new genus".
You have lost me there. Can you explain to us what you mean by this please?
You obviously have a grasp of evolution theory that I lack.
Using plain English with normal formatting and punctuation would help.

Peter Sellick I think misses the point. Attempts to make atheists into monsters who are not as equally interested in values and making the world a better place for all, are however futile and unworthy in these sorts of discussions.

I would say have faith in your own beliefs rather than feel the need to dismiss others' views as having no merit or value. Why not argue the merit of your POV and why it is important to you, rather than dismiss the choices of others. Especially if those people are living their lives probably not altogether very different to yours in deed even if not in words.

There are lots of discussions among atheists other than the question of the existence of God which is not a futile one, just one among a myriad of other worthy discussions.

Otokonoko
Wise words as usual.

Dear Newtus,

"If you accept that there can be no evidence of an immaterial god, and posit no material god, you are not "on the side of the atheists" - you are one!"

Then so be it.

If you adhere to strict technical definitions, then I am in the same boat as Peter Sellick. We are both religious (although he is Christian and I am not) and atheists, which shows that there is no contradiction - you can be an atheist AND a good Christian and/or religious person at the same time.

You must admit, though, that we are a strange kind of atheists - fixated on God, doing our best to come closer to Him and having no interest in the toxic rubbish discussed at the atheist convention.

I have no reason to believe that Peter Sellick would be adverse to scriptures other than the bible. The Anglicans I know are very interested in every spiritual teaching they can find.

>>you can be an atheist AND a good Christian and/or religious person at the same time.<<

But only if you use some strange new redefinition of atheist or religious that nobody else uses. Which means that nobody else actually knows what you're talking about or what points you may be trying to make.

Cheers,

Tony

Yuyutsu,
"....having no interest in the toxic rubbish discussed at the atheist convention".
I assume by this comment that you were actually at the convention because if you were not then how could you possibly know what was discussed?
To what "toxic rubbish" are you referring?

Dear Tony,

"or what points you may be trying to make."

I was not trying to make any point - it was Newtus who classified me as an atheist, and while I don't like to see myself as such, technically he was correct.
The commonly accepted definition of an atheist is of someone who believes that God does not exist, so I fit that description, according to which I'm not merely a "weak" agnostic, but even a "strong" atheist.
I would be more than happy to see that definition changed to exclude people as myself and Peter Sellick - any suggestions?

Regarding the definition of "religion", I only use the original meaning of the word from the Latin "Re-ligare" - Reconnect, rebind [with God], which is the same as the Sanskrit word "Yoga" which comes from the root "Yuj" = Yoke, join, unite, attach [to God].

Dear Priscillian,

I only heard about the atheist convention through this forum, and what I gathered is that they are busy there mocking religion.
While not a bible-believer myself, I think that it still has some valid teachings which I appreciate and respect, such as Psalm #1:

Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked,
or stand in the way that sinners take,
OR SIT IN THE COMPANY OF MOCKERS,
but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.

david/quote..""This question of "evolving a new genus".
You have lost me there.,,Can you explain to us what you mean..by this please?""

its not what i mean
its what the theory of evolution says

it claims..little step..[tiny changes]
make all the new genus...

[bacteria evolved into what?
fish evolved into other!

..[you know new genus...is when a fish
[lol]..has evolved..into a mammel..[there is no proof of this]

currently..im debating it here

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0

been waiting to reply
so off to do it now

i simply ask three proofs..[via valid dna changes..[evolutions].:as the theory in affect claims

thus i ask
what is the newest genus
[ie what new animal egsistes now..NOT THE SAME GENUS as its parents]

ie none

i also ask what the first living genus
what did it evolve into

please look up genus/species..
no new genus...*has ever been recorded nor observed

let alone achieved by science method..or chance
if so prove it

If one believes that Jesus died on the cross; then one has to hold in an open mind the possibility of the opposite? Where is the evidence? Articles written hundreds of years after the event, and then repeatedly plagiarized by other writers adding bits in, so that the clearly embellished record is true to the, as yet to appear missing messiah?
Is there a God? Intelligent design? Well, if none of the foregoing, then there has to be magic; given something as complex as a human being, with around 30 trillion cells and all of them purpose designed, i.e., brain cells, skin cells, bone cells etc/etc, being a product of extremely well timed and fortuitous chance? Is roughly equivalent to a whirlwind whipping through a junk yard and creating a fully functional and flyable 747?
Well, it could happen if we just wait long enough? Ha ha.
We are carbon life forms and the big bang had to happen; and stars had die and be reborn numerous times over; to turn hydrogen into carbon and oxygen/water. The basis of all known life forms.
It is an immutable scientific law that energy can be neither created or destroyed, but had to exist in some form before it became the matter, which makes up the incomprehensible universe/unified field of energy, we are able to perceive in small part today. [Nothing begets even more nothing and most of us have plenty of that.]
Why, it is postulated that there are more stars in our own Milky way than grains of sand on every beach on the planet; and conceivably, Galaxies could be just as numerous? Chance? God? Magic? Intelligent design? The God particle? Who can say with any surety? One can merely have people think one a fool or remove all doubt by opening the mouth to utter some deeply held, if fundamentally flawed surety. In conclusion, let me say, all wars have had an element of religious conviction at their centre; or as a casual factor, none of which may ever be conclusively proved as inherently true! Rhrosty.

>>I only use the original meaning of the word from the Latin "Re-ligare" - Reconnect, rebind [with God], which is the same as the Sanskrit word "Yoga" which comes from the root "Yuj" = Yoke, join, unite, attach [to God].<<

Fail. You just said you were an atheist and that you believe God does not exist. How do you propose to rebind with something that does not exist?

>>I would be more than happy to see that definition changed to exclude people as myself and Peter Sellick - any suggestions?<<

How about we make it somebody who believes that God does not exist and does not then go on to talk about God as if it was a real entity in their very next sentence?

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony,

"How do you propose to rebind with something that does not exist?"

Where did I ever say that God is something (or an "entity" for that matter)?

When you are dealing with things, with what exists, the best tool is science, not religion, but contemporary society places too much emphasis on things and is led astray by questions of existence.

God is not a thing - and it would indeed be blasphemy to attempt to equate God with a thing, a mere object (an unfortunate mistake too commonly committed by theists).

There is nothing you can positively say that God is, including that He exists. On the other hand, there is nothing BUT God - including ourselves, so the object of religion is to rediscover that (experientially, not just as an intellectual idea, which is easy), to rebind with God is to reconnect with who we really are (instead of the human facade which we falsely believe in), to remove the barriers of materialism and the illusion of existence which keep us in darkness about our true divine nature.

under one god,

The term "new genus" refers to the discovery of a new species. e.g The Wollemi Pine was described as a "new genus" after it was discovered in 1994. Judging by some of you comments and ideas I think you misunderstand the theory of evolution so could I highly recommend two books on the subject. "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin and "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.

Yuyutsu,

On the Friday night at the Atheist conference there were comedians who indeed did mock religion. At the dinner on Saturday night there was more mocking. I agree that mocking is not a form of rational debate. It can be funny though. The mocking is caused by applying reason to religious ideas and sure beats burning people at the stake whose ideas you happen to disagree with. This entertainment was not the basis of the conference.
At lunch time a looney Christian group and the next day a looney Islamic group yelled at us and condemned us all to hell. In a different environment I'm sure they would have done their best to send us there. Not many laughs from these guys.

prisco/quote..""The term "new genus"..refers
to the discovery of a new species.""

no prisilla..genus is divided into species

species micro evolve WITHIN the genus mean
meaning darwins finches....fluctuate between,,the long beaked and the short beaked[dependant on season[wet more towards long beaked..short in hot dry times

both yet are the same finch genus

""e.g The Wollemi Pine..was described as a "new genus"
after it was discovered in 1994.""

yes causee iot cant breed with any other pines
thus becomes a new genus[im going with faith..your correct[re its being a new genus]..sure a new spewcies within the pine genus..but the fact remains ..SCIENCE DIDNT MAKE ANY NEW GENUS*

you havnt visited the link have you?

""I think you misunderstand the theory of evolution""

mate i know enough to know its a theory!
that scioence cant make claim to!

i know that evolution[is solely..WITHIN genus]
no one[not even you..!]..can name any new genus
THAT EVOLVED OUT OF ANOTHER*

that wololy moo pine
ALLWAYS WAS THAT GENUS*
nuthing 'evolved'..to find it
\
""I highly recommend two books on the subject.
"The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin""

please visit the link
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0

I JUST RECOMENDED
AN ATHIEST ACTUALLY READ IT
not just quote it like some proof of genus evolving

i have read it many times
LOOK AT THE TITLE..'the origen of species*
four books..plus

NOT ...!,,,*EVOLUTION OF GENUS*!
[get it genious?

>>no one[not even you..!]..can name any new genus
THAT EVOLVED OUT OF ANOTHER*<<

Fail. Equus out of Plessipus.

Cheers,

Tony

under one god

You've convinced me. See you at church on Sunday.

lol..""tony/quote""..

5 search results returned

https://www.google.com/search?q=Equus+out+of+Plessipus.#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=k_SEjxu78ae2-ZTMojPhFg&pq=equus%20out%20of%20plessipus.&cp=9&gs_id=y&xhr=t&q=proof%20of%20Equus%20out%20of%20Plessipus.&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=proof+of+Equus+out+of+Plessipus.&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=81f616ffe00934cd&biw=1280&bih=718

he is talking about phenotype[looks like!]
based on fossils[stone..to wit no dna]
ofr horse ancestors

heck it could be anything
and genotype cant be proved

its a theory!

but mate tell me
give the dna proof!

you could just as easy said ape/man
and not have any proof..of that neither!

please present proof!

""A fossilised series of gradual changes
over geological time//"",,,lol

THEORISED to be ancestorial
BUT NO DNA..no genetic link!

phonotype..fooled darwin too

regardless
the horses today interbreed
thus all are the same genus today
just like the day god made em

ditto all domestic dogs..-all cannus
all domestic pigion breeds =columbia

you got a theory!

was going to research to refute..
but you didnt give any proof

please present your proof
not some delusion site

let the dna be revealed
silence signifies..faith..in theories of [dubious science]

http://instarhparvan.academia.edu/AdrianDobos/Papers/185382/The_Lower_Paleolithic_of_Romania_a_Critical_Review

NO PROOF*..that speaks volumes

Hey, under one god

It seems you really are an expert on this subject. My humble apologies. Could you please expand on your theory of the origin of life/species/genus please.
No links. Just a simple explanation would do.
Could you also refer to the data or "proof" you use to come to these conclusions?
I need this information for next Sunday.
Cheers.

i dont go to church..nor sinner gog..nor temple
i hate religios abuses..as much as i hate science abuse

see in life..intelligence
trying to find out what it is...i am is being

its not your smallness you fear
but your joinder to greatness

god live in you
your body..is gods church

he loves funny guys
heck he is funny as heck
once ya get past the screen of church lies
via rite/right/ritual/incantantion

and even the most valid tool for communing to 'higher forces]
the 'spell'..;..prayer...you can talk to god anytime you like
but gods too busy..in others doing it all for you

clearly your missing the good
for the forrests of lies

what does it hurt
to ask science >>to duplicate FIRST*!
before conning kids with god free THEOries

science never evolved anything
more science links refuted
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0

usually about now you god bearing athiest run away
yet again..

[heck we are only men..not god..
only good is perfect]..and im just as flawed as you lot

but i like to check facts
not believable fictions

go grab a handfull of stones
sort them by size shape colour
now put the little white one's..in a row..with bigger white rock's

to say these white ones 'evcolved'..into them green/grey/brown and black rocks

may be right..may be wrong..
the stoner theory..is just another theory

and theory Aint fact

quod erat demonstrandum

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase
quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as

"which was to be demonstrated''

funny
how you throw things back..in such clever ways
allway managing to avoid...actually saying something clearly

i blame it on the de-education system
not you personally...[me i just need to know..the truth]

and evolution...isnt a god replacement
it may be how god done it[we know science still dont got nuthin either way

except latin...
as what passes..for educated cleverness[book learning]
theories,,not actually breeding..or testing hypothesis

or declaring just one irrefutable fact
just one proof positive..of evolution OUT of genus
into a new genus...[you still clutching at straws..but yes]

maybe in time..you can prove it..lol
[but as you clearly cant!..stop teaching a theory[fiction]..as fact!

if they knew..ypou would know
but they dont..they got a micro theory
that dont do macro..[exta genus]full stop

if wrong
present one proof

they dont stack up
thats why its pay for vieuw

[see previous post]

Newtus,
You observed that my views are incompatible with the Anglican church. The following link shows this article featured on the Diocese of Perth Website.

http://www.perth.anglican.org/news-events/?page=4&paging=y

Peter Sellick