Archaeologica.org

Maybe.
But it is a big circle.
And sometimes the trip is the point, not the destination.

There is nothing wrong with a discussion. The trouble with true believers is that one cannot have such a discussion.

I just finished reading a fascinating little book called "Did Mohammed Exist" by Robert Spencer. The answer is - "probably not at least not as he is portrayed in the koran or the hadiths." What do you think the odds are of a discussion with a bunch of muslims about that?

It's always other side who are disparaged as "true believers."

People are hardwired for belief. We're pleased to imagine otherwise (about ourselves, at least), but this changes nothing. Our behavior gives us away.

Disbelief is the "tails" side of "belief." Underlying all the rationalisations, Evolutionists believe in Evolution just as fanatically as the Creationists they're arguing with believe in God/Intelligent Design.

We're ALL bozos on this bus.

There are museums full of evidence for evolution.

What do the creatards have to show that all life began 6,000 years ago in the middle east. Oh, yeah.... they have an old book that says so.

It's easy to look reasonable when you cherry pick the silliest claim out of the spectrum of opposing views and pretend it's a representative example of the whole body of thought you're taking exception to.

As you seem to have noticed

Repeat transmission : when everybody involved is operating in Belief mode, the best you can hope for is interesting insights turning up -- food for thought : some signal in the noise.

Um...they keep making it.

Along with talking snakes, earth covering floods, dinosaurs and man, and the sun standing still in the sky.

I'm not making this shit up, my friend.

OK.

I figured you'd be referring to Intelligent Design.

My bad

ID is nothing but creationism in disguise.

My problem with both forms is that they never feel the obligation to demonstrate any evidence that their god exists. They try to take that as a given.

It is NOT a given.

Third Law of Thermodynamics.

Complex things deteriorate into simple things.

Simple things don't spontaneously get more complex and sophisticated.

Alleging that everything just "happened," while cruising a one-way street in the wrong direction is on a par with "the dog ate my homework." Neither is "provable."

They're both beliefs, but ID is the more plausible one.

And that's as good as it gets.

Michael Rivero wrote:If you program a computer to solve the square root of two, it will keep working at the problem it until it runs out of resources and crashes. The smartest computer in the world is not intelligent enough to recognize futility; that some problems cannot be solved and that the best thing to do is quit before you destroy yourself.

Seems appropriate here

And that's as good as it gets.

And it is no where near good enough.

Provide actual evidence that your god exists....hey, I'll be charitable, provide evidence that ANY god exists and you can proceed. Otherwise, what you are spouting is simply religion.

And religion is bullshit.

As is the allegation that it is -- neither being susceptible of "proof," both are equally arbitrary and subjective.

Pot, meet kettle

He who makes the positive statement that there is a god bears the burden of proving it.

My position is that the typical "evidence" put forward by believers does not meet the grade.

"He who makes the positive statement that there is a god bears the burden of proving it."

This why O J is walking around a free, if a bit poorer, man.

kbs2244 wrote:"He who makes the positive statement that there is a god bears the burden of proving it."

This why O J is walking around a free, if a bit poorer, man.

Walking around free? When did he get out? There are still 5 years until he's eligible for parole.