This is a very good example of how faith can wreck your life.

It is no great secret that Catholics do not like Jews as they have always blamed them for the cruxification of Jesus.

Moral of the story...
People bullshit everyone around them to make a buck.
Give them a few drinks and they start telling you how they really feel.
As far as I know, Mel Gibson has no reason for being anti-Semitic, exept for what his Catholic religion told him. And he is very religious.

Quoted Text

Actor Mel Gibson's alleged anti-Semitic remarks have provoked a strong response from the Hollywood community, with some questioning his future as a film-maker.
"It's incredibly disappointing somebody of his stature would speak out that way at this sensitive time," Sony Pictures' Amy Pascal told the Los Angeles Times.

"I don't think I want to see any more Mel Gibson movies," veteran presenter Barbara Walters told the ABC network.

Producer Peter Bart, meanwhile, said Mr Gibson had "seriously compromised" his career.

"The critics will forever kill him," he wrote in industry newspaper Variety. "Sectors of the audience will shun his work. Through his incoherent tirades he has betrayed his friends and colleagues."

"I am so sad, so hurt and so disappointed," producer Jerry Weintraub told the Los Angeles Times. "I really feel bad for him as a human being."

His sentiments were echoed in the same newspaper by Jeff Berg, head of the International Creative Management (ICM) talent agency, who said Mr Gibson had created "a first-class mess".

"I hate what he said, and so does he," said Mr Berg, whose agency has represented the Braveheart star for 18 years.

"You cannot spin this. This is a question not of how low you can sink, but how you can dig yourself out of this hole."

"To make all of your money from Jews in Hollywood, and then have a few drinks and say you hate Jews, is shocking," said Arnon Milchan, producer of JFK and LA Confidential.

But Mr Gibson has received support from Oren Aviv, president of Buena Vista Pictures Marketing.

"We all make mistakes and I've accepted his apology to what was a regrettable situation," he told Slate magazine.

"I wish him the very best on his path to healing."

Mr Aviv will oversee the US release of Apocalypto, Mr Gibson's latest directorial project, later this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5234698.stm

Quoted from MeanDean

My problem is that you've stated that you're annoyed that people argue from faith alone but refuse to consider that everything is based on some sort of faith by implying that your point of view is better for the reason that... I'm speaking from faith... which annoys you.

You make a good point. . . This is the reason that evolutionists don't enjoy debates.  Evolution is a 'faith' in itself. I have some reasons why I dismissed evolution as a theory 30 years ago.

1. Healthy humans have a sense of smell, taste, hearing all of which are not vital to life. . but do make life enjoyable. Evolution does not go 10 steps ahead of what would be needed purely for survival.

2. Humans have a conscience . . there is NO evolutionary need for that and developing cells could not possibly form with such complicated 'morals nor the undeniable sense of justice we all have..

3. Humans derive great pleasure from listening to and performing music. There is no evolutionary need for that and the arts either.  

4. Cell mutation (neccessary for evolution) is ALWAYS a bad thing. I had a lump removed from my back today and the doctor never for one minute suggested I was 'evolving' wings or an extra (very handy) arm. He could not get it off me fast enough . .

5. If evolution caused human life from some sort of primeival soup . . then that event would still be happening . .we would see 1/2 formed swamp creatures in the suburbs and just recognise they are still forming. (that is not a swipe at modern teens).  

I noted a comment about the Bible saying the Earth was flat. . . Bible writer Isaiah knew 2,300 years ago that the Earth was a circle Isa 40:22 so he beat Columbus by 2,100 years. . . Columbus now looks pretty foolish.  

Quoted from MeanDean

No sir, you don't have Mean in your username.  You named yourself after a snake.

One of God's creatures ...sorry, no it isn't according to Biblical teachings it is the devil's so only the Biblical followers would find a snake mean when in fact it is one of evolutions better creations; beautiful, elegant, efficient and very good in the environs they evolved in and adapted to. The Boomslang is a particularly beautiful and elegant snake, not a mean bone in its body.

Quoted Text

My problem is that you've stated that you're annoyed that people argue from faith alone but refuse to consider that everything is based on some sort of faith by implying that your point of view is better for the reason that... I'm speaking from faith... which annoys you.

I just went back through my posts and cannot find anywhere that I said I'm annoyed that people argue from faith alone, and nowhere have I said that my point of view is better. You keep putting meanings into my posts that aren't there. The one thing I have said is that you can never win a religious argument with someone who is devout because as soon as you bring up the inconsistancies and facts that belie their arguments they revert back to faith. I have just stated you cannot argue against faith because it is intangible, not based on any facts and asked you to just blindly believe that something exists without any proof of its existance at all.

That annoys me personally as it immediately cuts off the debate, but that does not make me think any less of the person making the faith based assertion, and I fully respect (and sometimes admire their unwavering belief in something they can't prove exists) their right to their belief.

Quoted Text

I'll be back another time, probably tommorow, to go over the rest... sort of like I said before you went picking it apart anyway.  I should be in a better mood after getting some sleep

I have a 1000km+ motor bike ride tomorrow but if I'm not too tired when I get home I'll look forward to how you are going to prove science is based on faith.

Quoted Text

Thanks for using the "Wilipedia" for something that's a debatable issue.  It would be somewhat of a laugh to look at the revision history of that article I would think.

It was quick and convenient. Do you want me to quote all the other definitions I found, none of which mention science as being based on faith btw, that seems to be yours and the IDers assertion? The documentary on the ID court case in the USA showed why they come at science from this perspective and try to assert that science is faith in hypothesis. Basically they believe it legitimises their hokum as being equal to the true sciences, thus they can debate on equal terms with the true sciences, and if the true sciences attempt to debate in return to debunk ID then the IDers say they are a legitimate science because they are part of the overall scientific debate. They failed on two fronts in that firstly, the true sciences refused to engage them in any form of debate whatsover cutting that avenue off at the knee and secondly, the US court threw out their claim to scientific legitimacy as religious based faith and not scientific based observations, thus cutting them off at the neck.

The meaning of FAITH from Dictionary.com found here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

noun
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

Main Entry: faith
Function: noun
1 a : allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person b : sincerity or honesty of intentions —see also BAD FAITH, GOOD FAITH
2 : fidelity to one's promises and obligations


faith
n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: religion, religious belief] 2: complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust" [syn: trust] 3: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: religion] 4: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

faith
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result
of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith,
and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3).
Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it
assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the
understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate
ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.
Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which
are regarded as mere facts of history. Temporary faith is that state of mind
which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by
the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common
operation of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is so called because it has eternal
life inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the
words of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving
grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is
offered to us in the gospel." The object of saving faith is the whole revealed
Word of God. Faith accepts and believes it as the very truth most sure. But the
special act of faith which unites to Christ has as its object the person and the
work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific act
of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16;
Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). In this act of faith the believer
appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices. This
assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has always
associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a consenting
will, and a loving heart, together with a reliance on, a trusting in, or resting
in Christ. It is that state of mind in which a poor sinner, conscious of his
sin, flees from his guilty self to Christ his Saviour, and rolls over the
burden of all his sins on him. It consists chiefly, not in the assent given to
the testimony of God in his Word, but in embracing with fiducial reliance and
trust the one and only Saviour whom God reveals. This trust and reliance is of
the essence of faith. By faith the believer directly and immediately
appropriates Christ as his own. Faith in its direct act makes Christ ours. It
is not a work which God graciously accepts instead of perfect obedience, but is
only the hand by which we take hold of the person and work of our Redeemer as
the only ground of our salvation. Saving faith is a moral act, as it proceeds
from a renewed will, and a renewed will is necessary to believing assent to the
truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4). Faith, therefore, has its seat in the
moral part of our nature fully as much as in the intellectual. The mind must
first be enlightened by divine teaching (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6;
Eph. 1:17, 1 before it can discern the things of the Spirit. Faith is
necessary to our salvation (Mark 16:16), not because there is any merit in it,
but simply because it is the sinner's taking the place assigned him by God, his
falling in with what God is doing. The warrant or ground of faith is the divine
testimony, not the reasonableness of what God says, but the simple fact that he
says it. Faith rests immediately on, "Thus saith the Lord." But in order to this
faith the veracity, sincerity, and truth of God must be owned and appreciated,
together with his unchangeableness. God's word encourages and emboldens the
sinner personally to transact with Christ as God's gift, to close with him,
embrace him, give himself to Christ, and take Christ as his. That word comes
with power, for it is the word of God who has revealed himself in his works,
and especially in the cross. God is to be believed for his word's sake, but
also for his name's sake. Faith in Christ secures for the believer freedom from
condemnation, or justification before God; a participation in the life that is
in Christ, the divine life (John 14:19; Rom. 6:4-10; Eph. 4:15,16, etc.);
"peace with God" (Rom. 5:1); and sanctification (Acts 26:18; Gal. 5:6; Acts
15:9). All who thus believe in Christ will certainly be saved (John 6:37, 40;
10:27, 28; Rom. 8:1). The faith=the gospel (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:23; 1
Tim. 3:9; Jude 1:3).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

think we need a  "post length nazi" in this forum

Quoted from Gizmo

You make a good point. . . This is the reason that evolutionists don't enjoy debates.  Evolution is a 'faith' in itself. I have some reasons why I dismissed evolution as a theory 30 years ago.

1. Healthy humans have a sense of smell, taste, hearing all of which are not vital to life. . but do make life enjoyable. Evolution does not go 10 steps ahead of what would be needed purely for survival.

2. Humans have a conscience . . there is NO evolutionary need for that and developing cells could not possibly form with such complicated 'morals nor the undeniable sense of justice we all have..

3. Humans derive great pleasure from listening to and performing music. There is no evolutionary need for that and the arts either.  

4. Cell mutation (neccessary for evolution) is ALWAYS a bad thing. I had a lump removed from my back today and the doctor never for one minute suggested I was 'evolving' wings or an extra (very handy) arm. He could not get it off me fast enough . .

5. If evolution caused human life from some sort of primeival soup . . then that event would still be happening . .we would see 1/2 formed swamp creatures in the suburbs and just recognise they are still forming. (that is not a swipe at modern teens).  

I noted a comment about the Bible saying the Earth was flat. . . Bible writer Isaiah knew 1,300 years ago that the Earth was a circle Isa 40:22 so he beat Columbus by 1,100 years. . . Columbus now looks pretty foolish.  

Like MeanDean said, I'll get back to you, there are so many holes in your premise above even amatuer scientist could drive a truck through them.

First I will start by saying it is not evolutionists that don't enjoy debates, they continually love debating their science as that's what science is about, but it is religion, and specifically this absolute religious nonsense that evolution is nonsense, that doesn't like the scientific debate as their intelligent design bunkum keeps getting shot down.

1. Smell, taste and hearing are all absolutely vital to survival and as we continue to evolve and modern life puts less emphasis on certain senses, those senses that have become less important are fading, proving evolution.

2. Conscience is a direct result of evolution and there is every need for it in survival as it is what made us the dominant species on the planet. Without it we would have become just some more predator fodder eons ago.

3. Animals also like to listen to music and pleasant sounds. The ability of humans to create music and art is a result of the evolution of the brain to the point of being able to communicate in more sophisticated ways, sounds and pictures formed those early communications and as the brain grew and evolved so did the complexity of the sounds and the expansion of the pictures, which were used to communicate the presence of game and other things needed for groups to survive. They then became part of identifying one indivuduals status in the group and that groups status within tribe and that tribes culture. All absolutely necessary for order, identity and survival of species.

4. Cell mutation is not ALWAYS a bad thing, and sorry if this is abrupt but what a crock of an example you gave. There is just not enough space to explain how mutation can lead to superior species adapted to environment, whilst bad traits or too slow an adaption lead to extinction.

5. This is the worst example yet and sorry it really does show ignorance. The Earth that the primoidal soup existed in was extremely toxic to us and any life outside the soup. The advent of the first single celluar life forms (which scientists have almost duplicated in labs) to that of mulitcelluar forms took place over a billion+ years, and from that to the more complex forms and onto  the first aquatic animals took hundreds of millions. Look at the evolutionary timeline. There are massive gaps as early life started and then narrowing as multiple species eventually formed and then narrowing further as variety took off etc.

But strangely enough you have some basis for fact, as there are places on earth in rancid hot sulphurous springs where against all logic there are bacteria and micro-organisms thriving and evolving. Mutations of some of these organisms have allowed them to live in fresher water thus expanding their range and populations. That is the basis for a new evolution if it can survive for the next billion or so years.

Quoted from boomslanger

1. Smell, taste and hearing are all absolutely vital to survival and as we continue to evolve and modern life puts less emphasis on certain senses, those senses that have become less important are fading, proving evolution.
.

You are wrong there . . my husband is deaf . . and not dead!
Another friend has no sense of taste or smell (after being hit by a truck) and she is not dead either. . but both suffer a deficit in quality of life. . . so explain to me why doctors try so hard to stop our teens loosing their hearing by the use of earphone music appliances.  . .or should we charge doctors with 'hindering' evolution. . .and why do we feel a sense of revulsion when a birth results in siamese twins . .who often die.

Quoted from Gizmo

You are wrong there . . my husband is deaf . . and not dead!
Another friend has no sense of taste or smell (after being hit by a truck) and she is not dead either. . but both suffer a deficit in quality of life. . . so explain to me why doctors try so hard to stop our teens loosing their hearing by the use of earphone music appliances.  . .or should we charge doctors with 'hindering' evolution. . .and why do we feel a sense of revulsion when a birth results in siamese twins . .who often die.

It is amazingly funny when people refuse to give in.  

If your husband was deaf and blind with no sense of taste or smell, he would want to be dead. But he would not be because you would insist in keeping him alive.
People who do have those problems are kept alive because the community help them.

If your husband was living alone and there were no government assistance for deaf people, he would find it very difficult to get a job in order to survive.

However, in the animal world where there is no such community, if an animal becomes blind, he cannot hunt for his food and die of starvation. If he becomes deaf, he becomes an easy pray for predators and die.

Evolution is related to the adaptation of nature. It has nothing to do with men creating loud music.

Furthermore, evolution takes thousand of years for the slightest changes to occur.

If Antarctica melt and most of the planet is under water, within a million years men would grow fins like fishes in order to swim better and he would learn to breath under water like fishes do.

Birth defects have nothing to do with evolution. It is just bad breeding amongst people who are incompatible for each other. Wrong mixture of genes. Some people should not be allowed to breed all together because they have defects themselves. But they reckon it is their democratic right to do so. Why should they care? The government is there to pick up the medical bills for the next 60 years anyway.

What I would like to see, is the government removing all assistance for sick people. Then we would be able to see how powerful God really is when it comes to keeping them alive.

Next... Apart from giving you a deaf husband...
What did God ever do for you from a materialistic point of view?
Would the world stop tomorrow if you did not had God?
Would you starve to death?
Does he prevent you from having a car accident?

I tell you what you do...
You work hard for everything you get...
And you give God all the credit for what you get.
Thank you God for letting me work hard today so that I can feed my family.

And when something bad happen...
You don't blame God for screwing your life... No.
You say "God must have a reason for doing this".
And I should not ask him what his reason is...
Because no-one question God.

Quoted from SuziH

The meaning of FAITH from Dictionary.com found here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

noun
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
A set of principles or beliefs.

Main Entry: faith
Function: noun
1 a : allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person b : sincerity or honesty of intentions —see also BAD FAITH, GOOD FAITH
2 : fidelity to one's promises and obligations

Yes indeed. I did have that sort of faith in the past.

You put all your faith in one person.

Then one day, that person stab you in the back.

No more faith ever again for me. Thank you.

And no... I was not referring to an ex-wife.  

I think that probably we can at least all step back for a moment and laugh at how much we've put into something that doesn't immediately amount to a whole lot all by itself.

Quoted from MeanDean

I think that probably we can at least all step back for a moment and laugh at how much we've put into something that doesn't immediately amount to a whole lot all by itself.

You are right . .(again). . but it shows that a debate can happen without bloodshed.      . .it has been fun.  

Once again I'm the guy that was the cause of any nastyness though.  No bloodshed but a few mean words on my part.
I guess I'll get started on the long task of explaining what I was on about in that obscure and bold claim I made to boomslanger.

Okay... maybe I took things a little more personally than what you intended, I'm sorry for that.  It was easy to do though and yesterday I went back over it and had felt that you were not so much wanting to debate as you were wanting to debate and be angry.  If that's wrong, I apologise.  I was tired and moody yesterday so I'm not really sure now and haven't gone over it again.  I'm taking your word for it.  Either way though, fair enough to get angry and I guess I should be the last person to complain about such things aside from also getting angry maybe... but that's a differant thing.  I've decided that since I like you, though, that I'm going to call you 'Snakeboy' unless it pisses you off

First off, I don't know what Intelligent design is. I'm about to read about it but I thought I'de start of by saying that if George Bush beleives in it that probably it isn't that "Intelligent".
Okay I've read some about it.  I wouldn't use that in a debate and it doesn't look very attractive.

I forgot, I wanted to point out that I don't discount science or think it can be disproven.  I think that it is based on faith at some level and some of it at much higher levels than others.  Also, in the case of not beleiving that there is a God, it most certainly makes the assumption that where things DO exist that just can not be explained by science... ever, will remain mysteries but will remain mysteries explicitly with the absense of God even being a possibitliy.  This attitude can only hold water, within scientific method, if it can be proven that God does NOT exist.  Here we have the complete flipside of Intelligent Design now that I think of it.  Anyhow, science has already proven that there things in the universe that can not be proven.  Weird that, to prove that some things can not be proven.  That in itself sort of mandates that as people, we will fall back on faith at some level.  This was apparently written by a person or persons who wanted to look smart or understood it well and don't have a gift for putting things in plain terms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem#Discussion_and_implications

Code The next sentance is true. The previous sentance was false.

I'm not sure the article even touched on that. I only barely skimmed it.  That's far from a spectacular example though and doesn't have any Earth moving consequences.

I'm going to go onto more that a tangent now.  I'll try to let you know when I've come back.  Probably you've heard it before though.
I can't find great referances with the topic being too diverse on google but I think reading this should provide enough to understand it from either interpretation listed in the article as well as the hypothetical scenario itself.  Don't let all the strange jargon discourage you from this article, the jargon comes too quickly at the beginning and wasn't necissary to include.  People forget that they're writing for normal people I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
"And so then perhaps space is untimatley quantifiable and time is qauantifyable at fundamental levels, and perhaps when we look to the future at any given moment and see all the possibilites that can happen for each and every person that indeed all of those possibilities do happen each one branching out into it's own universe and the things that brought us to this moment from the last one... so many possibilities there were.  

Did the probability field colapse to this for me or for everyone?  Did someone else just arrive from their own universe while they that I knew... their probability took them to another one?  The universe is created as we observe it afterall   So... does that mean that when I look back, when I remember, that I create what has happened or that what has happened has actually happened and if it has actually happened is that just what's happened for me or did it happen a little differantly for other people and we all find ourselves at the same time now?  Perhaps this is why police find that 10 witnesses give 10 very differant accounts to the same event and why people disagree so intently about what it was 25 years ago that we ate for Christmass... or do I just create all of that and all of them as I observe the universe as I go along?

Since the universe is created as I observe it, where am I when I'm dreaming?  Is that just a made up memory that *poof* came into existance because it was probable?

I'm done with the weird tangent.  You get the idea of why I went there I imagine, if taken seriously, which it is... well I'll let you ponder the many, many possibilities for yourself.


Back down to more conventional things... ya know what screw that, I'm just going to put it simply:
Prove the Big Bang theory.  I'll I've seen is an observed red shift and some background radiation coming from all directions... so what. "PROVE the damn thing.  I'm really sick of people arguing that the existance of God can not be proven while outright refusing to accept that things like the Big Band and Evolution are not rock solid facts.  I'm not claiming that they aren't true, I'm not claiming that the Bible (for example) was not altered, I'm not claiming that there's no other life in the universe or that this planet is the center of it.  I'm not saying that string theory is wrong.  I'm saying that I beleive there is a God, and that I feel there is proof of it.  I feel there's proof of it in quantum mechanics, even in string theory the proof is in the very nature of the theory being unprovable... the thing that's supposed to disprove God that can itself never be proven... it's not like I'm beating anyone over the head with a bible.  I'm just trying to say that there is plenty of room for faith within the construct of science and I personally find it annoying that someone would use science, and such facinating things does it bring, to try to disprove God... it's just plain... it shows that you haven't learned enough or that you aren't smart enough to really know what you're talking about when you imply that anyone has proven Jack.  I looked out the window today, and I didn't see any evidence of a Big Bang, but I'm not saying it didn't happen and you know what, God does as God wants and everything always will fall within Him and ya know what else, even your "IF string theory"... have you ever thought for a moment, Einstien, that if we run into something that might inevitably account for the nature of everything, yet can't be proven, that it just may be that it's because you're trying to prove God with mathematics?  I mean it's no freakin leap of logic to say "Where did the Big Bang come from"  What the hell is wrong with people.  This isn't about God or religion, this is about charachtorising people and that Churches DO exploit and pastors ARE evil but leave that out of the equation because it's really annoying to me and you DO come off as being judgemental.

Prove evolution also.  I don't want some fossils and a chart, I want YOU to tell ME scientifically things like "Why are there so many wars?" "Why do bad things happen?" because if you're point of view, which I by no means discount and much of which you'de find I embrace, is better then I want you to answer all those questions.

As for my end of it I'm just going to say that if God doesn't come out of the sky and say "Hello Boomslanger" "Hello AOL" then it's because it's not His nature, and you know what, it's OUR nature to be violent pricks so own it and face up to it people.  


Just so no one is confused by the way, only an idiot of scientist would claim that evolution is provable.  You would hear "There's great evidence supporting it," and the same is true of the Big Bang.  And lets not forget the fact that lots of things are just plain made up to fill in the gaps.  Some of them pan out and some don't.  Anti-matter, graviton particles... already a working logical for anti-matter but it didn't satisfy everyone including the 11 dimensional (and rightfully considered nutbags at the time) string chasers if not still.  And even still who cares because despite "there being good evidence" for the particle, not enough is known to even say if that disqualifies Einstiens model or if they are somehow the same thing... a model that was previously tested... anti-matter, I think the good evidence for that is more like "educated assumtion".  And if you look at the history of science, of cosmology, of even mathmatics, that is pretty much how things have panned out and it does go even back into when these assumptions were made by the church.  Make no mistake that any error made by the church was made by men and women like you and me.

Prove it.  Prove there is no God.  Don't give me evidence that I can just continue to say "Yeah... but prove there is no God," to.  I feel like the world got divided into teams and that the debate took a wierd tangent long before I was ever born and now it is itself a subtle war... and look back on your posts boomslanger... you are cocky but accuse those who believe something you do not of being the same.

I think I'm done.  I've been typing for a while and I'm out of words so I think the post is done.

Hey... do you ever talk about those "Damn Christians, Those Catholics, or so on?"  Do you think any of us really give a rats a** to say "Those damn athiests"  f***... go cry about the crusades some more.  I have software to write and other stupid threads to post in.
Before I leave though "Those God damn Athiests... you people are retarded sometimes"

Quoted from MeanDean

The topic is religion, not the Bible... read before you type... nuff said.
Where does the Bible say that?

If you look back at posts previous to mine, they were discussing the 'Big Bang' theory and the bible. Maybe you should be reading before you type as well, hmm?

And your comment was that the bible says the Earth is flat.  I don't see what your logic for claiming a one up on me here is.