Christopher has realized the monetary benefits of being an intellectual Englishman in America. He loves the adoration of being the naughty boy in the family. If he was chocolate, he would eat himself.
I'm merely an 'armchair' student of the Bible but from my studies of the scriptures and other books relating to the Bibles authenticity, accuracy both historically and prophetically, it's integrity and it's honesty; there is no other set of documents to be found like it. Most critics, to be fair, have not done their due diligence.
Chris went on a strawman tangent there on ID. ID is not viewed by its proponents as a replacement of the ToE, nor did Peter argue for equal time in the classroom.
"Just because he used WMDs then does not mean he had them in 2003." Neither does it mean that he didn't and the inspectors had not finished their hampered investigations when the invasion began. The same weapons inspectors did not make this claim in 2003 as they had not finished their work. Know your subject before making claims.
---> Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today. "
@haz020190 Peter got his religion when he was in his 40s, he and his Jewish wife both converted. Christopher's atheism has nothing to do with his childhood.
The thumbnail is hilarious, seems to suggest that Hitchens superior intellect is so great that inferior Hitchens needs to read it several times before comprehending it.
@aladon1965 I didnt quote wikipedia, I recommended that you look up those things on wikipedia. By the way, wikipedia happens to be extremely accurate in spite of the fact that it is user generated. It is rigidly maintained.
Moreover, science is not the study of ontology. Philosophy, in many ways, is. Science addresses the "how" things came to be: philosophy, the "why" they came to be. Science addresses the material and iterative functions of life. Philosophy addresses the purposefulness of the finished investigation. Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy dealing with "essential" qualities of life, deals with questions of "being"; what it is, what is means to be, what being is in relation to others.
Radioactive clocks based on the half life of certain isotopes eg. Potassium Argon dating or on a smaller scale Carbon dating. Even dendrochronology can go back further than 6000 years. Look these up on wikipedia if you dont believe me.
Once more with feeling... We call it a theory because there are still open questions and the model is not complete. The same can be said of gravity. We know exactly what gravity does and how it behaves, but we can't say for certainty what it actually is. That's not the case with evolution, for which we already have a more complete picture of than for gravity. If it's an idea someone has that has not been tested, we call it hypothesis. Big difference.
You dont seem to realise that the account was not written in English anyway, but in Hebrew. Furthermore, English cannot sum up in a few words what some Hebrew words can describe on their own. The word in question is ' yehiy 'or'. Some say it could mean, 'let it exist'. Even the word we use, Amen, means 'let it be so'. Which in real terms is a command but it is also an agreement.
Peter says intelligent design has a scientific basis. I wonder if he can tell us of any research done in the name of intelligent design, if there's any evidence supporting it, and if anyone in the scientific community supports it.
The theories are the how, as are the laws. Philosophy asks what the laws mean for us as human beings. It discusses how we might live together, how knowledge should function in society; it questions whether we can know anything at all. It questions whether there is universal goodness, truth, beauty. Trust me, it is far from defunct. Indeed, philosophy first gave birth to physics and thence science. The analytics of philosophy are the analytics of science.
Ohh, I winced when I heard Peter say he thought ID had some points; Christopher threw him that knowing how he'd respond and how easy it is to discredit ID. He could have done a better job, but when it comes to religion the case against it is so easy I think Christopher what just having some fun and practicing his rhetoric.
Ahh, I finally see something Hitchens is pointing out regarding Iraq. Iraq was OUR (U.S.) responsibility since 1968. To not intervene would be in essence to be support the old 1968 imperialist policy. To intervene would be to support the new 2002 imperialist policy. It was a lose/lose situation in a sense. I finally get Hitchen's point about Iraq now. Damn. I was happier being ignorant.
That's actually not the point. The reason that the US/UK invaded was because of WMD but a JUSTIFICATION of the continuance of that is indeed to end oppression, torture and mass deaths by a sadistic dictator
And Bush said that one of his greatest regrets in office was the failure of US intelligence in Iraq. However, check your facts, the inspectors had not finished their inspections in 2003 when the invasion began. All of this is frankly a circular argument. It is always easy to criticise such actions with hindsight. It never cease to amaze me that people such as you seem to argue a pro-Saddam argument.
Churches DO teach the Darwinian theory of evolution. If Christopher had stepped into a church while he was alive, he would have been surprised that, unlike the Teacher's Union, they don't fear openly examining challenges to their faith and exposing their young to them.
@AdamSzm He just points out all of the fallacies in religious belief while still supporting the idea of free thought. I disagree partially with his support of the war, but i cannot disagree with his logic about religion. The difference between CH and a fundie preacher (cant believe that any rational person and even make that statement) is that Hitchens does not base his argument on something that can be neither disproven nor proven. His arguments can be objectively critiqued
Jesus is mentioned and prophesied about profusely in the Old Testament. There about 300 direct references about the coming Messiah in prophecy that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
skepticism towards the theory of evolution does not give the green light to make up things and spin them off as science. if ID could come up with any testable model, they would have a case - as it stands now, they don't.
I hope people understand that the "theory" in the theory of intelligent design does not refer to a scientific theory. There is a very big difference between scientific theory and general theory. ID is most certainly not scientific theory, as the theory of evolution most certainly is a scientific theory.
In our shop we have 3 or 4 titles by Mr Dawkins, 2 titles refuting "The God Delusion". Then we have 2 shelves worth of books devoted to Christianity or famous X-ian types, many variations on the bible, couple of prayer books. What else? Half a shelf in the kid's section. After that a smattering of Buddhism, then the token Jewish and Muslim titles. It's a small shop, obviously. Then numerous X-ian inspired classics. It's a hotbed of enlightenment, humanist and atheist belief. uh. obviously.
If people want to think "God did it", I have no problem with that. Should it be taught in science class? Well, quite simply, let's see the evidence. Let's see the peer-reviewed journals. Let's see the evidence of the scientific method being used. No? Then no science class.
Moreover, the hypothetical decision not to invade hardly leads to the designation of a country as imperialistic. I'd imagine that most would agree that a country's decision not to impinge upon the borders of another is far from imperial in any sense. As we now know, America (and its poodle, Britain) were trying to protect their own strategic interests. Both countries fought for international supremacy and oil, nothing more. To find contrariwise is to have your eyes fastened shut.
Not to be dogmatic, but it is a "theory," and like any theory it is subject to change. Ergo, it contains facts AND inconsistencies. BUT as Dawkins contends, "it is still the best theory we have" to explain how life came to be as it now is. Hence, until it is bettered by another theoretical postulation, it is all that we have.
No problem to teach darwinism in faith schools. The odd thing is that if God is the logos e.g. reason/logic of the universe he would have known the outcome of evolution so it is still within a logic design framework. Would be frigtening if evolution would lead to an irrational outcome. Dawkins might eventually have to eat his hat(e) once he recognises that evolution and the entire universe is governed by one logic, the word of God, e.g love thy neighbour, and selfishnes being the deadly sin.
Even the English is sadly lacking in a linguistic context. Why would god say "Let there be light?" Let = please allow; surely god would command "there will be light"? And what is the distinction you are trying to draw between the light of the sun and 'god's light'. Surely if god illuminates things he has no need to instruct himself to permit it to illuminate other matters? You are showing yourself to be contemptibly daft.
Don't even refer to ID as it's full name; that would grant it more syllables than it's worth. Just call it ID; not I. D., as in pronouncing each letter, but phonetic id. Or you can call it it's proper original name: creationism.
If you read the first verses of the Gospel of John, you'll realise that God is not one dimentional like you or I, but spoke the world into being through His Word, who is a person. Jesus.
do you know what evidence means? 2nd century ad means at least 200 years after Jesus's time, and luckily for us, there were certain civilizations at that time that were fully able of documenting historical events like the Romans the Illyrians the Chinese even somewhat the Egyptians, yet somehow it is always the illiterate in the middle east where miracles and gods are born. Judaism, christianity and islam.
With respect, you are wrong about that. Genesis Ch 1 V 3 - 5 God is saying let there be light in V 14 - 19 He is creating the Sun, stars and moon. The light that lit the Earth in the first 3 days was the 'light of God'. God showed something very unique at the start and will show itagain at the end. Compare these verses Revelation 21:23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. also Revelation 22:5
Josephus' Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) "Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When ----->
I do realise that it was not written in English but I am making the presumption that such commands might have been accurately translated considering that god had obviously bothered to narrate all this to some desert-dwelling human. "Let it" still implies a dispensation which signifies a command or permission which the all-seeing-all-knowing creator would not need to do. It is still totally illogical and only serves to prove that the story is wholly false.
Saying "God did it" is the same as saying "we don't know." We don't know what this god is, what its attributes are, and if it's intelligent enough to create something it must be at least as, and probably more, complex than the thing it made. Ergo all you've done it is make your life harder.
Under no circumstances was the Iraq war justifiable. I buy the argument that the people were living under a dictator, but it is up to those people to chose to through off the bonds of oppression. Remember, the US gave the very chemical weapons they were looking for to Sadam in the first place - these weapons were used in the Iraqi campaign against Iran. Why didn't they topple him then? Because he was a strategic asset. My friend, OIL was the primary reason for the invasion of iraq.
You might as well say what was God's plan for each human being in the past who has since ceased to exist. Dinosaurs evolved into other equally beautiful creatures, which all form the beauty of creation. There is a mass of evidence for creationism if you knew anyting about it, particularly the intricacy of matter, our world is so astonishingly delicately finely-tuned for life that if just one cog in the machine were adjusted just slightly differently the whole thing wouldnt work!
The problem for the United States if it is an Empire is to avoid the folly of a Universal Empire after which then comes the fall of the Empire, is Iraq the high point of this. I support the idealiims of hitchens wanting the war but the reality on the ground is a diaster and may cause the end of the US hegemony. The rise of the EU and Germany is the result and for all the best reasons I welcome this. The EU is the biggest exporter and the new superpower. Zionism in the US must be limited.
Most reasonable estimates are indicating a little more than 6000 years. Now, you may not accept the fact that I have evidence for this, in the Bible. So, what do you base your 4.6 B years on? Make it short.
T3NgU666 Actually Peter did'nt get the question, and neither did I. The question was fucking ridiculous. The guy said "When you visit Natural History Museum, and see dinosaurs, how does that impact on your faith". What the fuck do dinosaurs have to do with Christian faith? Peter Hitchens doesnt believe the world was made in 7 days, so what does it mean?
One makes the assumption that when Genesis 1 says "On the second day" it means that the first day has thus ended ... and so on. Isn't this logical, even for the dimwit that wrote Genesis?
Creative but Those ideas Are not supported but Evidence or the Bible. God made Plants on the 3rd day, Sun moon and Stars on the 4th day, All land animals on the 5th Day I assume Noahs Flood didnt kill the Dogs and Cats.
Peter Hitchens is wrong again, all the Bookstores in the UK stock Bibles. Now, I'm pretty sure thats where the theory of Intelligent Design comes from.........
... and your statement proves the existence of the theist belief? No sir, it doesn't. It arguably indicates the remote possibility of a creator but then only a deistic one at best. It provides no evidence for the Abrahamic god; that your ilk believe is watching over us. As for your statement that were things to be slightly different that "the whole thing wouldn't work", can you expand on that please?
And I agree with you, most assuredly. No one should accept the dubious if not impoverished hypothesis that God "dun it" as you say. But you are wrong about the Greeks. Did Democritus, Leucippus, Thales, Anaximander, believe that the Gods were responsible for all created matter? Did they even believe in creation ex nihilio? No, they did not. Was the One of Plato and Aristotle God per se? No, it was not. The Greeks you must be speaking off were those not yet enlightened.
@niginit People are not given the choice, (in science) to explore other possibilities even though evolution is very poor in evidence. Evolution is very well presented in School and on TV but for those who wish to dig a little deeper in the subject, it is a frustratingly fruitless experience. Even when evidence points to Biblical accuracy, it is explained away in any other way the imagination can muster.
It is a sad reflection of the times to see an intelligent man like Peter Hitchens stand in public and argue in favour of intelligent design. Surely he cannot know the depth of its absurdity, or the sheer arrogance of its misconstrued view of biology; shame on him. I would expect this from a fanatic from AIG like Ken Ham or the happily incarcerated Hovind. Less of this please Hitchens Junior don't let your religious conviction poison your critical mind.
@niginit You should challenge yourself to at least try and study some of the journals from creation scientists. You'll probably not do that becasue you'll discount it as a fairy story etc, but that shows that you are unscientific. To only look at one side of the presented evidence is unscientific
Your memory is failing you. The United Nations sent in inspectors who were messed about and denied access to certain sites by Saddam. You have also forgotten that Saddam had already used WMDs on the kurds, killing over 100,000 people. Iraq was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and previous resolutions calling on him to give up WMDs. Once the invasion began, the invading forces had the legal obligation to leave only when Iraq had become stable. and governable.
Well relarerfhjk, how do you square dinosaurs with creationism? What was god's plan for dinosaurs? Don't be silly, please. There is a mass of evidence for evolution and NONE for creationism.
@SseBb First off. Saying evolution is provenb, doesn't prove that it is. It simply isnt. Only people that roam the halls of UA-cam seeem to think so. Scientists dont.
@aladon1965 Listen aladdin. I don't have the time, nor the patience to sit and play games with sad little people on the interwebz. It's been fun, but it must end, unfortunately. Take some time to actually read and comprehend some of the immensely accurate and profound information you are foolishly attempting to discard, or discredit. The evolution of the eye is very convoluted and takes a sharp mind and a lot of a patience to comprehend. Patience and comprehension, you should work on those.
@aladon1965 So, science is very poor on evidence. Yet, you just said "Even when evidence points to biblical accuracy. So, science doesn't use that stuff called evidence, yet when evidence (assuming it's scientific evidence, you're speaking of) is pointing to biblical accuracy.... Then it's REAL evidence, right? You have no idea what you're talking about. The evidence is, that evolution by natural selection IS proven beyond any serious, or reasonable doubt. It's a fact. Science is true.
Perhaps if it acted more humanely in world affairs, the image of American imperialism would wane. It's not enough to resurrect a straw man in the argument. Incidentally, I'd regard America's late entry into World War II as an example of its role as "defender" of democratic principles. I would not regard it in imperialistic terms. Ergo, Hitchens is talking rubbish.
NOT to intervene in Iraq would have been an imperialist move? Hitchens, please. On the subject of the war in Iraq, C.Hitchens has totally disgraced himself. He sounds pathetic any time he tries to apologize for the neocon gang that plunged the US into the war. On the subject of religion, C.Hitchens is no different than fundamentalist preachers. I’m not religious, but I can’t stand Hitchens’ atheist demagoguery nonetheless.
"A paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including physicist Paul Davies) claiming that light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe'. If this is proven, then your common sense has done you no good in this case. Most nuclear processes are mathematically related to the speed of light, a faster c might well mean a faster rate of radioactive decay, explaining much of the evidence used to justify the billions of years of geological hypothesizing."
@aladon1965 I know more about creationism than I want. I know more about religion than anyone should want to know. Honestly, it's not even very interesting. The only reason I bother studying it is because of the ill effects religion causes. You know nothing about science, though. That much is certainly clear. What's hilarious about you silly creationists is, you always try bluffing some sort of profound knowledge of science. It's immediately proven false when you deny evolution.
The Bible has been tested and retested many times by the greatest skeptics and been found academically flawless and extremely accurate historically. Raelko, try reading non-atheistic literature and see if your ignorance subsides.
@qqs764 My point proven! Listen, with respect, evolution is unproven. Talk to an honest scientist in any field relating to origins and they'll confirm my words.
"I think there is a difference between launching an aggressive war and not doing so."
Spot on.
Christopher has realized the monetary benefits of being an intellectual Englishman in America. He loves the adoration of being the naughty boy in the family. If he was chocolate, he would eat himself.
I've spent ten parts of this debate being very curious about this thumbnail.
Imagine the family Christmas dinners at the Hichens household!
I'm merely an 'armchair' student of the Bible but from my studies of the scriptures and other books relating to the Bibles authenticity, accuracy both historically and prophetically, it's integrity and it's honesty; there is no other set of documents to be found like it.
Most critics, to be fair, have not done their due diligence.
"It's just as imperial not to invade Iraq, and to leave the status quo the way it is, as it is to intervene." What sort of argument is this?
I haven't thought about the Pledge of Allegiance for years until I read your comment. Looking back in retrospect, what a fucking weird thing that was.
Chris went on a strawman tangent there on ID. ID is not viewed by its proponents as a replacement of the ToE, nor did Peter argue for equal time in the classroom.
The point about Imperialism is one of the cleverest I've heard advocating the war.
A rationale can be provided for this phenomena by observing that one brother is far more intelligent than the other ...
"Just because he used WMDs then does not mean he had them in 2003."
Neither does it mean that he didn't and the inspectors had not finished their hampered investigations when the invasion began.
The same weapons inspectors did not make this claim in 2003 as they had not finished their work. Know your subject before making claims.
---> Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today. "
@haz020190 Peter got his religion when he was in his 40s, he and his Jewish wife both converted. Christopher's atheism has nothing to do with his childhood.
The thumbnail is hilarious, seems to suggest that Hitchens superior intellect is so great that inferior Hitchens needs to read it several times before comprehending it.
@aladon1965
I didnt quote wikipedia, I recommended that you look up those things on wikipedia. By the way, wikipedia happens to be extremely accurate in spite of the fact that it is user generated. It is rigidly maintained.
Moreover, science is not the study of ontology. Philosophy, in many ways, is. Science addresses the "how" things came to be: philosophy, the "why" they came to be. Science addresses the material and iterative functions of life. Philosophy addresses the purposefulness of the finished investigation. Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy dealing with "essential" qualities of life, deals with questions of "being"; what it is, what is means to be, what being is in relation to others.
Radioactive clocks based on the half life of certain isotopes eg. Potassium Argon dating or on a smaller scale Carbon dating. Even dendrochronology can go back further than 6000 years. Look these up on wikipedia if you dont believe me.
Once more with feeling...
We call it a theory because there are still open questions and the model is not complete. The same can be said of gravity. We know exactly what gravity does and how it behaves, but we can't say for certainty what it actually is. That's not the case with evolution, for which we already have a more complete picture of than for gravity.
If it's an idea someone has that has not been tested, we call it hypothesis. Big difference.
You dont seem to realise that the account was not written in English anyway, but in Hebrew. Furthermore, English cannot sum up in a few words what some Hebrew words can describe on their own.
The word in question is ' yehiy 'or'. Some say it could mean, 'let it exist'.
Even the word we use, Amen, means 'let it be so'.
Which in real terms is a command but it is also an agreement.
Peter says intelligent design has a scientific basis. I wonder if he can tell us of any research done in the name of intelligent design, if there's any evidence supporting it, and if anyone in the scientific community supports it.
The theories are the how, as are the laws. Philosophy asks what the laws mean for us as human beings. It discusses how we might live together, how knowledge should function in society; it questions whether we can know anything at all. It questions whether there is universal goodness, truth, beauty. Trust me, it is far from defunct. Indeed, philosophy first gave birth to physics and thence science. The analytics of philosophy are the analytics of science.
Ohh, I winced when I heard Peter say he thought ID had some points; Christopher threw him that knowing how he'd respond and how easy it is to discredit ID. He could have done a better job, but when it comes to religion the case against it is so easy I think Christopher what just having some fun and practicing his rhetoric.
And they can't because they're using scientific language, but no actual science.
Ahh, I finally see something Hitchens is pointing out regarding Iraq.
Iraq was OUR (U.S.) responsibility since 1968. To not intervene would be in essence to be support the old 1968 imperialist policy. To intervene would be to support the new 2002 imperialist policy. It was a lose/lose situation in a sense. I finally get Hitchen's point about Iraq now.
Damn. I was happier being ignorant.
That's actually not the point. The reason that the US/UK invaded was because of WMD but a JUSTIFICATION of the continuance of that is indeed to end oppression, torture and mass deaths by a sadistic dictator
And Bush said that one of his greatest regrets in office was the failure of US intelligence in Iraq. However, check your facts, the inspectors had not finished their inspections in 2003 when the invasion began.
All of this is frankly a circular argument. It is always easy to criticise such actions with hindsight. It never cease to amaze me that people such as you seem to argue a pro-Saddam argument.
Churches DO teach the Darwinian theory of evolution. If Christopher had stepped into a church while he was alive, he would have been surprised that, unlike the Teacher's Union, they don't fear openly examining challenges to their faith and exposing their young to them.
no, obviously the use of belief was a terrible slip...
oooh that was brilliant from christopher...I thought that lecturer had him pinned.
@AdamSzm He just points out all of the fallacies in religious belief while still supporting the idea of free thought. I disagree partially with his support of the war, but i cannot disagree with his logic about religion. The difference between CH and a fundie preacher (cant believe that any rational person and even make that statement) is that Hitchens does not base his argument on something that can be neither disproven nor proven. His arguments can be objectively critiqued
Jesus is mentioned and prophesied about profusely in the Old Testament.
There about 300 direct references about the coming Messiah in prophecy that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
The evidence is not partisian. How that evidence is used is so.
sorry, i meant "enlightenment, humanist and atheist BELIEF"
skepticism towards the theory of evolution does not give the green light to make up things and spin them off as science. if ID could come up with any testable model, they would have a case - as it stands now, they don't.
I hope people understand that the "theory" in the theory of intelligent design does not refer to a scientific theory. There is a very big difference between scientific theory and general theory. ID is most certainly not scientific theory, as the theory of evolution most certainly is a scientific theory.
In our shop we have 3 or 4 titles by Mr Dawkins, 2 titles refuting "The God Delusion". Then we have 2 shelves worth of books devoted to Christianity or famous X-ian types, many variations on the bible, couple of prayer books. What else? Half a shelf in the kid's section. After that a smattering of Buddhism, then the token Jewish and Muslim titles. It's a small shop, obviously. Then numerous X-ian inspired classics. It's a hotbed of enlightenment, humanist and atheist belief. uh. obviously.
@automaticSOM
You lose. Anyone who quotes 'Wikipedia' cannot be serious.
Oh wow, there is quite a variance in mental capabilities among those brothers!
If people want to think "God did it", I have no problem with that. Should it be taught in science class? Well, quite simply, let's see the evidence. Let's see the peer-reviewed journals. Let's see the evidence of the scientific method being used.
No?
Then no science class.
and now peter's saying that nobody understand biology, so I guess all modern medicine is just fancy placebos then
like homeopathy
Except that 'the lamb' was not around at the time of Genesis ... not that we know of anyway. Does Jesus get a mention in the Old Testament? No.
Moreover, the hypothetical decision not to invade hardly leads to the designation of a country as imperialistic. I'd imagine that most would agree that a country's decision not to impinge upon the borders of another is far from imperial in any sense. As we now know, America (and its poodle, Britain) were trying to protect their own strategic interests. Both countries fought for international supremacy and oil, nothing more. To find contrariwise is to have your eyes fastened shut.
Not to be dogmatic, but it is a "theory," and like any theory it is subject to change. Ergo, it contains facts AND inconsistencies. BUT as Dawkins contends, "it is still the best theory we have" to explain how life came to be as it now is. Hence, until it is bettered by another theoretical postulation, it is all that we have.
belief should have been "values"... fuck me that's actually worse.
No problem to teach darwinism in faith schools. The odd thing is that if God is the logos e.g. reason/logic of the universe he would have known the outcome of evolution so it is still within a logic design framework. Would be frigtening if evolution would lead to an irrational outcome. Dawkins might eventually have to eat his hat(e) once he recognises that evolution and the entire universe is governed by one logic, the word of God, e.g love thy neighbour, and selfishnes being the deadly sin.
Even the English is sadly lacking in a linguistic context. Why would god say "Let there be light?" Let = please allow; surely god would command "there will be light"? And what is the distinction you are trying to draw between the light of the sun and 'god's light'. Surely if god illuminates things he has no need to instruct himself to permit it to illuminate other matters? You are showing yourself to be contemptibly daft.
You Believe there were Dogs and Cats and people roaming around the Cenozoic era?
Or did God create them from nothing?
what was that?
Don't even refer to ID as it's full name; that would grant it more syllables than it's worth. Just call it ID; not I. D., as in pronouncing each letter, but phonetic id. Or you can call it it's proper original name: creationism.
If you read the first verses of the Gospel of John, you'll realise that God is not one dimentional like you or I, but spoke the world into being through His Word, who is a person. Jesus.
2nd century is AD 100 - 199.
do you know what evidence means?
2nd century ad means at least 200 years after Jesus's time, and luckily for us, there were certain civilizations at that time that were fully able of documenting historical events like the Romans the Illyrians the Chinese even somewhat the Egyptians, yet somehow it is always the illiterate in the middle east where miracles and gods are born. Judaism, christianity and islam.
With respect, you are wrong about that.
Genesis Ch 1
V 3 - 5 God is saying let there be light
in V 14 - 19 He is creating the Sun, stars and moon.
The light that lit the Earth in the first 3 days was the 'light of God'.
God showed something very unique at the start and will show itagain at the end.
Compare these verses
Revelation 21:23
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
also
Revelation 22:5
Josephus' Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) "Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When ----->
I do realise that it was not written in English but I am making the presumption that such commands might have been accurately translated considering that god had obviously bothered to narrate all this to some desert-dwelling human. "Let it" still implies a dispensation which signifies a command or permission which the all-seeing-all-knowing creator would not need to do. It is still totally illogical and only serves to prove that the story is wholly false.
Saying "God did it" is the same as saying "we don't know." We don't know what this god is, what its attributes are, and if it's intelligent enough to create something it must be at least as, and probably more, complex than the thing it made. Ergo all you've done it is make your life harder.
how can peter grow up alongside chris and still end up like this? its insane!!
Under no circumstances was the Iraq war justifiable. I buy the argument that the people were living under a dictator, but it is up to those people to chose to through off the bonds of oppression. Remember, the US gave the very chemical weapons they were looking for to Sadam in the first place - these weapons were used in the Iraqi campaign against Iran. Why didn't they topple him then? Because he was a strategic asset. My friend, OIL was the primary reason for the invasion of iraq.
You might as well say what was God's plan for each human being in the past who has since ceased to exist. Dinosaurs evolved into other equally beautiful creatures, which all form the beauty of creation. There is a mass of evidence for creationism if you knew anyting about it, particularly the intricacy of matter, our world is so astonishingly delicately finely-tuned for life that if just one cog in the machine were adjusted just slightly differently the whole thing wouldnt work!
The problem for the United States if it is an Empire is to avoid the folly of a Universal Empire after which then comes the fall of the Empire, is Iraq the high point of this.
I support the idealiims of hitchens wanting the war but the reality on the ground is a diaster and may cause the end of the US hegemony.
The rise of the EU and Germany is the result and for all the best reasons I welcome this.
The EU is the biggest exporter and the new superpower. Zionism in the US must be limited.
You have read the name Jesus in the OT?
The Bible is not proof because you say so, or becasue someone told you that?
Most reasonable estimates are indicating a little more than 6000 years.
Now, you may not accept the fact that I have evidence for this, in the Bible.
So, what do you base your 4.6 B years on?
Make it short.
T3NgU666 Actually Peter did'nt get the question, and neither did I. The question was fucking ridiculous. The guy said "When you visit Natural History Museum, and see dinosaurs, how does that impact on your faith". What the fuck do dinosaurs have to do with Christian faith? Peter Hitchens doesnt believe the world was made in 7 days, so what does it mean?
What you have said is completely false. Genesis 1 is meant to be literal. God does not repeat the same thing on different days.
One makes the assumption that when Genesis 1 says "On the second day" it means that the first day has thus ended ... and so on. Isn't this logical, even for the dimwit that wrote Genesis?
NEWS FLASH... Peter is a dork and is obviously out classed by his power house bro Chris.
Creative but Those ideas Are not supported but Evidence or the Bible.
God made Plants on the 3rd day,
Sun moon and Stars on the 4th day,
All land animals on the 5th Day
I assume Noahs Flood didnt kill the Dogs and Cats.
Peter Hitchens is wrong again, all the Bookstores in the UK stock Bibles. Now, I'm pretty sure thats where the theory of Intelligent Design comes from.........
... and your statement proves the existence of the theist belief? No sir, it doesn't. It arguably indicates the remote possibility of a creator but then only a deistic one at best. It provides no evidence for the Abrahamic god; that your ilk believe is watching over us. As for your statement that were things to be slightly different that "the whole thing wouldn't work", can you expand on that please?
And I agree with you, most assuredly. No one should accept the dubious if not impoverished hypothesis that God "dun it" as you say. But you are wrong about the Greeks. Did Democritus, Leucippus, Thales, Anaximander, believe that the Gods were responsible for all created matter? Did they even believe in creation ex nihilio? No, they did not. Was the One of Plato and Aristotle God per se? No, it was not. The Greeks you must be speaking off were those not yet enlightened.
@niginit
People are not given the choice, (in science) to explore other possibilities even though evolution is very poor in evidence. Evolution is very well presented in School and on TV but for those who wish to dig a little deeper in the subject, it is a frustratingly fruitless experience.
Even when evidence points to Biblical accuracy, it is explained away in any other way the imagination can muster.
It is a sad reflection of the times to see an intelligent man like Peter Hitchens stand in public and argue in favour of intelligent design. Surely he cannot know the depth of its absurdity, or the sheer arrogance of its misconstrued view of biology; shame on him.
I would expect this from a fanatic from AIG like Ken Ham or the happily incarcerated Hovind.
Less of this please Hitchens Junior don't let your religious conviction poison your critical mind.
@niginit
You should challenge yourself to at least try and study some of the journals from creation scientists. You'll probably not do that becasue you'll discount it as a fairy story etc, but that shows that you are unscientific. To only look at one side of the presented evidence is unscientific
Your memory is failing you. The United Nations sent in inspectors who were messed about and denied access to certain sites by Saddam. You have also forgotten that Saddam had already used WMDs on the kurds, killing over 100,000 people. Iraq was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and previous resolutions calling on him to give up WMDs. Once the invasion began, the invading forces had the legal obligation to leave only when Iraq had become stable. and governable.
Well relarerfhjk, how do you square dinosaurs with creationism? What was god's plan for dinosaurs? Don't be silly, please. There is a mass of evidence for evolution and NONE for creationism.
He could stop whit that claping hand manipulation
@SseBb
First off. Saying evolution is provenb, doesn't prove that it is. It simply isnt. Only people that roam the halls of UA-cam seeem to think so. Scientists dont.
Common sense? Try exhibiting some.
"Nor have you"
Evolution via natural selection.
@aladon1965
Listen aladdin. I don't have the time, nor the patience to sit and play games with sad little people on the interwebz. It's been fun, but it must end, unfortunately.
Take some time to actually read and comprehend some of the immensely accurate and profound information you are foolishly attempting to discard, or discredit. The evolution of the eye is very convoluted and takes a sharp mind and a lot of a patience to comprehend. Patience and comprehension, you should work on those.
@aladon1965
So, science is very poor on evidence. Yet, you just said "Even when evidence points to biblical accuracy.
So, science doesn't use that stuff called evidence, yet when evidence (assuming it's scientific evidence, you're speaking of) is pointing to biblical accuracy.... Then it's REAL evidence, right?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The evidence is, that evolution by natural selection IS proven beyond any serious, or reasonable doubt. It's a fact. Science is true.
sooo.. Peter is both a global-warming denialist AND a supporter of intelligent design? How nice.
really?
well i don't know what bible you are reading but the one I use, it's hardly anything like what you describe.
heh
@aladon1965 Bloody silly thing to say. Read something
Hitchens imperial argument....@_@. He sounds like my dad saying evolution theory is just as credible as creation science. This is where he loses me.
Perhaps if it acted more humanely in world affairs, the image of American imperialism would wane. It's not enough to resurrect a straw man in the argument. Incidentally, I'd regard America's late entry into World War II as an example of its role as "defender" of democratic principles. I would not regard it in imperialistic terms. Ergo, Hitchens is talking rubbish.
NOT to intervene in Iraq would have been an imperialist move? Hitchens, please.
On the subject of the war in Iraq, C.Hitchens has totally disgraced himself. He sounds pathetic any time he tries to apologize for the neocon gang that plunged the US into the war.
On the subject of religion, C.Hitchens is no different than fundamentalist preachers. I’m not religious, but I can’t stand Hitchens’ atheist demagoguery nonetheless.
pffff, intelligent desing isnt interesting at all, and theres plenty of errors that have been found in evolution, and corrected
"A paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including physicist Paul Davies) claiming that light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe'. If this is proven, then your common sense has done you no good in this case.
Most nuclear processes are mathematically related to the speed of light, a faster c might well mean a faster rate of radioactive decay, explaining much of the evidence used to justify the billions of years of geological hypothesizing."
@aladon1965
Who?
Listen, Alladin, stop with the religious assertions, prove a point, or GTFO.
Please supply me with evidence of Jesus' existence. The BIble is NOT proof.
OMG My ears! Peter is cutting my ears apart! The whistling cuts like a plasma beam!
nor has you! rofl
@aladon1965
I know more about creationism than I want. I know more about religion than anyone should want to know. Honestly, it's not even very interesting. The only reason I bother studying it is because of the ill effects religion causes.
You know nothing about science, though. That much is certainly clear.
What's hilarious about you silly creationists is, you always try bluffing some sort of profound knowledge of science. It's immediately proven false when you deny evolution.
Peter Hitchens is so petty and pathetic.
OMG Peter is a creationist.
So?
@@Nameless-pt6oj it's shocking and alarming to see a person with access to so many resources and knowledge, cling to old and long debunked ideas.
The Bible has been tested and retested many times by the greatest skeptics and been found academically flawless and extremely accurate historically.
Raelko, try reading non-atheistic literature and see if your ignorance subsides.
@@MT-kx2uc I'm not being ironic
@qqs764
My point proven!
Listen, with respect, evolution is unproven. Talk to an honest scientist in any field relating to origins and they'll confirm my words.
"Ssssssssssssssssssssss"