T-Nation Atheists

[quote]pookie wrote:
This is getting tedious. Learn how science works.

Theories are never proven.

Theories aren’t just random ideas that scientist pull out of their asses after a night at the pub.
[/quote]

Then why do you treat theories as fact?

Then since the theory of macroevolution has been invalidated by a lack of demonstrated intermediate species, why hasn’t the theory been replaced with a new theory? Why? Because they don’t follow the scientific method you seem to know nothing about, but worship like a god.

lorisco, for your benefit I am gonna paste what someone wrote in the ID thread. If you wish to talk about theories, evolution, abeogenesis, and that nonsense, please move it over there.

[quote]Xvim wrote:
First, we should clarify what “evolution” means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is “a change in allele frequencies over time.” By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to
associate the word “evolution” mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution “only a theory” is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what “theory” means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn’t a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one’s conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you’re operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn’t 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has–evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Hypothesis, based on observable and inferred evidence, tested, independantly verified and falsifiable. Evolution is science and belongs in the science classroom. Intellegent Design is an interesting philosophical concept, but it’s not science. I’m all for bringing up ID, christian or otherwise, in an philosophy or social studies class you want.

That article was about as close as I could find to the bibilical timeline mentioned earlier, there is some fossil evidence of a larger, world wide flood that occurred much earlier and this flood is documented in the mythology of cultures from around the world. Each of them takes the same approach, that the gods are punishing us. The Aztecs had legends of a great flood in which the ‘wooden monkey men’ were destroyed by the gods for their wickedness, for stealing the women of the humans, the chinese and india cultures have similar stories, and of course there’s the biblical account of god’s wrath being meted out on the elohim or ‘giants’ that were taking the daughters of men as their ‘brides.’ I have a theory about the orgin of this myth and the commonality from culture to culture but like the origins of judeo-christian monotheism, it’s all sort of irrelevant to what evolution is and isn’t.

These are all interesting topics but most dont’ have much to do with evolution vs. ID and hardly any of these questions are related at all. Abiogenesis isn’t a part of evolutionarty theory :P[/quote]

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer.

This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Author2 Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies

Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

  As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing.  The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.  In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.  

  Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century.  If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years.  

This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.

 Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing.  This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document. 

This is from my records so not sure if it will show very well but with some carefull reading you can see what it says. Thats fine if you dont believe Jesus lived. My stance is that it takes more faith to hold to that position then to believe he was a historical figure. This is held my believers and non-believers alike.

The earliest documents were written with a couple of years after Jesus died so I dont see how this strengthens are your arguement. It makes sense that it would be written after the crucifiction and the eye witness accounts started to spread.

So I guess i dont see your point about it being written after the fact. This is most historical events are written down or atleast that is the earliest manuscript evidence we see 2,00 years later.

the arguement that “conservative pundits like to point to athiesm as the cause of many evils” is the same thing as liberal pundits pointing to the evil deeds done in the name of religion and your right neither proves or disproves Gods existence.

[quote]bonzi50 wrote:
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” - Karl Marx[/quote]

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I’ll never know. - Groucho Marx

Let’s not forget the lesson that Einstein taught us about approaching science in a subjective way.

When Einstein came up with his field equations for matter, he realized that mutual gravitational forces would cause all the mass in the universe to clump together. So, because he believed that the universe should be static (which was purely a philosophical concern), he added a “fudge factor,” called the cosmological constant, to his equations which counteracted gravity and allowed his model of the universe to be static.

The problem is that soon after he produced these field equations, Hubble discovered proof of the expansion of the universe, which make Einstein’s equations obsolete.

So, because he wanted to believe in a static universe, he made what he called his “biggest blunder.” Also, his aversion to quantum mechanics, which is now almost universally accepted by scientists, was based on his idea that “God doesn’t play dice.” Again, his world view dictated his scientific thinking, and prevented him from being part of one of the most incredible innovations in the history of science.

So, if you approach biology by saying “I want to make sure it agrees with my religious views,” you are going to either have to resort to non-scientific thinking, or be disappointed when you find that Nature behaves according to her own whims.

I think that anyone who opposes the theory of evolution based on religious views should also note that academia is by no means a purely secular place. There are countless examples of devoutly religious evolutionary biologists, cosmologists, etc.

I also find it amusing that you no longer hear many people making a fuss about the Big Bang model of the universe, since there is an incredible amount of data which supports it (the WMAP microwave background images, mainly). I also don’t see anyone arguing that the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is offensive to their religious philosophy, again because it has stood up to every experimental test so far.

Plus, I think that most anti-evolution types have very little scientific training, and feel more comfortable saying “My uncle ain’t no monkey,” than “The Copenhagen interpretation of the probalistic nature of qunatum mechanics doesn’t quite fit with my literal Biblical world view.”

swordthrower-

Your statement that those who dont believe in evolution have no scientific background is flat out wrong. Here is a link to a list of very well know scientists that have come out against evolution in some aspect: www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

I just listened to a leading scientist who recently retired give an interview and he talked about how most in his field dont believe in evolution but go along with the whole notion because if they dont, then they dont get any grant or research money.

does this disprove evolution? No but its interesting to say the least. I personally believe evolution obviously happens on some levels but to say we all came from a single cell is to me rediculous.

How did life come from non-life? how come mutations lead to a loss of information when for evolution to occur we would need to see massive amounts of increasing information to have accured. This is a whole nother topic though.

Just wanted to point out your blanket statement is flat out false. I live in the most populated scientific community in the country in hanford washington and the scientific community is split on the issue. . .

[quote]pookie wrote:
Theories aren’t just random ideas that scientist pull out of their asses after a night at the pub.

[/quote]

Asimov!

Do I win anything?

[quote]aslater wrote:
swordthrower-

Your statement that those who dont believe in evolution have no scientific background is flat out wrong. Here is a link to a list of very well know scientists that have come out against evolution in some aspect: www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

I just listened to a leading scientist who recently retired give an interview and he talked about how most in his field dont believe in evolution but go along with the whole notion because if they dont, then they dont get any grant or research money.

does this disprove evolution? No but its interesting to say the least. I personally believe evolution obviously happens on some levels but to say we all came from a single cell is to me rediculous.

How did life come from non-life? how come mutations lead to a loss of information when for evolution to occur we would need to see massive amounts of increasing information to have accured. This is a whole nother topic though.

Just wanted to point out your blanket statement is flat out false. I live in the most populated scientific community in the country in hanford washington and the scientific community is split on the issue. . .[/quote]

Okay, so if there are so many scientists opposed to evolution, then why is the best replacement offered so far ID? If a group comes up with a theory which better describes the natural world than evolution, then they have a guaranteed Nobel prize, and they will be considered scientific heroes.

And a list of scientists who don’t agree with evolution coming from the Discovery Institute is pretty suspect if you ask me… Ok so they have a few hundred names, out of how many tens of thousands of scientists worldwide?

And I have no problem with people disagreeing with some of the specifics of evolutionary theory, based on valid scientific concerns. But I have a problem with, “life is too complicated, we don’t have every fossil ever created, so there are gaps in the record, therefore a higher power is involved.” That is not a scientific objection.

This is a list of people who feel that the complexity of life cannot be explained solely by random mutations and natural selection. Why don’t they offer a better theory then?

I am a physicist (in training), and I don’t believe that the standard model completely describes the natural world, but it does a good job explaining most scenarios.

But, that doesn’t mean that I think that Nature is too complex to be understood. I just think that we have work to do, and that we need to continue our meticulous study without resorting to supernatural explanations.

There are a lot of incredibly rare processes happening all over the universe, and the universe provides us with an incredibly large sample size, so even incredibly rare phenomena are bound to happen (like life springing up in some quiet galaxy).

And your “increasing information” argument sounds suspiciously like the 2nd law of thermodynamics “violation” that ID proponents claim. However, you are forgetting that we have a constant energy source in the sun, so that while local entropy may not increase, no violation occurs because the earth is not a closed system.

You could make the same argument about clouds. A cloud is an ordered object, and you could think of its shape as “information.” How could “information” appear out of nowhere? Therefore, clouds cannot arise out of purely random processes, and there must be a higher power creating them, right?

swordthrower,

I respect your position but some of your arguements I would argue are suspect. you discount the list because it is from the discovery institute? What is wrong with the discovery institute?

I would look at the list of scientists given. Some of these guys are the most respected in their chosen fields. Do your research and look at the scientists presented.

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

usable energy is running out

information tends to get scrambled

order tends towards disorder

a random jumble won?t organize itself

It also depends on the type of system:

An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down? see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn?t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

? there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ?

There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below.

The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won?t make you more complex?the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy.

If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun?s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It?s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ?open systems? canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this.

It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

The theory of evolution has been proven wrong many times and yet the theory remains. The scientific method dictates that you start with an idea (hypothesis) and then test that idea. If that idea is not proven, you throw it out or revise it and try again. So when has the hypothesis that man evalued ever been changed or throw out? NEVER! That my friend, makes evolutionary science, unscientific. And if it is unscientific because it doesn’t follow the scientific method, then it is faith-based and a belief system.
[/quote]

Here’s one revision on evolution that was taught in my Catholic high school biology class.

Clearly your opinion is based on exhaustive research.

Todd

[quote]aslater wrote:
Antony Flew the worlds leading atheist and well know debator actually changed his stance and while not holding to a particular religion, believes in a “God” of some kind.[/quote]

How exactly does one become the world’s leading atheist? Would that look good on a resume?

[quote]seekingstrength wrote:
Which God of the Bible are we supposed to follow? Abraham’s warrior God? The vengeful God of Noah? Jesus’s forgiving God? The problem is the anthropomorphism that goes on througout the Bible and today. It makes God a potent weapon against anyone who is thinks differently.[/quote]

Great Questions!! The Bible maintains that there is but One God. He is The Supreme Being with personality and attributes. Why can HE not be a Lover AND a Fighter, capable of dispensing both Justice AND Mercy? Scripture tells us He created both Male AND Female in His image and yet they are completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Why have more than one image? Does one reflect God more than the other? Is it possible that together in unison they represent an even greater revelation of Himself?

The Bible reveals the God of creation and of History as He has interacted with man over time. I don’t need to defend Him or explain Him. He IS! He’s God! He does what He wants. God is not the evil. The Bible is not the evil. They are not the evil anymore than money or muscles are the evil. Money can pay to have someone killed or build a hospital. Muscles can carry someone to safety or crush their nose into their skull. The evil is how MEN use these things, in this case their own misguided religious beliefs (not necessarily the truth), to incite or guilt or control others.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
futuredave wrote:
Hamster wrote:
Jesus could not have possibly been just a “good guy.” He claimed to be God! So it stands to reason that either he was: a)God, or b)a liar and a great deceiver of many!

Actually, his claims were pretty common. There were dozens of men who came and went, claiming to be the messiah.

Okay…name one.

And it’s still going on. Either those who claim to BE the messiah or have special extra-biblical revalations… Jim Jones, David Koresh, Mohammed, Joseph Smith… the list goes on and on.

Exactly how many healed cripples, returned sight to the blind and raised people from the dead?

Even the historians of the day called him “magical.”

While they did not know what to make of him he was indeed a puzzle to them.
[/quote]

Zeb… sorry, I haven’t been reading this thread. It’s late and I’ll post about other false messiahs when I get a chance.

Meanwhile, I’d like to post this about false prophets.

Let’s say Jesus did work the miracles claimed in the New Testament. According to God Himself, those miracles don’t mean anything. If anything, watch out for those who perform miracles, yet cause the law to be broken or people to follow ‘other gods.’

According to the verses below, Jesus fit the very definition of a false prophet. I’m not trying to be insulting to your beliefs here, I just don’t understand how you can read this any other way.

This is from Deuteronomy 13:1-10…

“1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.”

[quote]pookie wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Atheism is a form of arrogance.

Faith is a form of ignorance.[/quote]

Atheism is a form of faith.

haney,

This was a fantastic post. Thank you.

Todd

[quote]haney wrote:
pookie wrote:
It seems to be pretty common for the believers to try and “prove” God’s existence thru mechanisms that can equally be applied to just about anything else.

For example,

  • The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being who possesses every perfection.

  • Existence is a perfection.

  • Therefore, the FSM exists.

  • Arrr! Bow before your Noodly Creator matey!

You don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Prove he doesn’t exist. If you can’t you must believe in his Saucy Presence.

I agree you can’t disprove anything someone wants to belief in. I think Dale Carnegie said it best " A man forced to change his opinion is of the same one still. Whatever you believe to be truth is what you will cling to unless you are really searching for yourself. God/no God/undecided you believe what you do because up to this point you have found something compelling that makes you think what you think.

I don’t think proof is really every the heart of the matter. It is more or less the baggage that comes along with what you choose to believe.

I don’t think any side of this issue is with out a reason of why they believe. I think there are plenty on the side of Faith/undecided that don’t know the slightest bit about what to believe other than what someone has told them. I can’t say that about most Atheist (by this I mean strong Atheists) since they are an extreme minority in the world, that means there are fewer that aren’t educated about why they think what they do.

This is not really all that surprising since many people don’t know what is going outside of primetime TV. I think it is sad that so many are satisfied to be “led around by the nose” when it comes to what they believe.

I said it earlier I am constantly refining my faith, and trying to pursue what I believe to be truth. I don’t prescribe to anyone Christian Dogma, and in many cases I would be considered a heretic in the Baptist Church I attend. Why do I still go because to that church you might ask. simple I feel at home there. It is a place where people who I agree with on many topics, and share very similiar belief’s are. I also enjoy the spirit of caring for each other that everyone has.

Can an atheist belong to groups with the same qualities? I would wager that you could.

I know I rambled a little bit, but I don’t think proof/reason to believe what we have talked about up to this point is absent in any of the three groups we have discussed.

The believer of a faith has a foundation that has some historical truth, and moral codes that he puts his faith in. The agnostic looks at all that is going on and is mostly trying to what belief fits with his reality. The Atheist weighs what he believes to be the best facts at the time to determine if there is a God.

To me I think pursuing truth should include all three of these views. It is too bad most people on get good at one of them. [/quote]

[quote]miniross wrote:
Your comments are always welcomed. They may be suspect, but welcome. What you would do to a person who didnt think hypertrophy is possible is supply or get them to learn on the back of EVIDENCE, which is widely documented, and studied in animals as well as humans.

That is the key difference there. It still amazes me how it must be to know all you need to know as He has told You something.
[/quote]

I appreciate being welcome even if my comments are suspect! :slight_smile:
My point exactly! Those who have grown big muscles, and have NO DOUBTS about it’s being possible, are attempting to convince those who don’t believe in it. Likewise, those who have faith in God, based on credible and historical and verifiable evidence, are attempting to show those who are yet to believe.

The believers are attempting to supply the EVIDENCE to learn on. Imagine the surprise they feel when the skinny little atheists won’t believe them.
<just staying with the analogy - save your flames>

None of the things these hypothetical non-believers could possibly say about muscle hypertrophy changes the TRUTH that it is possible.
Not, “I tried it but it didn’t work”,
not" My gym’s hours aren’t convenient",
not “Some people are too fanatical”,
not, “Supplements are too expensive”, not “People die from taking steroids”.

What do all those have to do with anything? Those are excuses and half truths and perceptions. Is muscle growth possible? Of course it is!!! Does God exist? Are you kidding me?

As for your final comment - I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that you don’t have children. :slight_smile: Am I right? I only say that because sometimes, all my kids need to know is what I’ve told them. I don’t always have the time or the need or the desire to fully explain myself. I tell them to wear a hat and gloves when it’s 25 below zero outside because I understand frostbite. I don’t need to explain it in laborious detail. If they simply do what I say, things will go well for them.

I saw a great example of this in a play in which a grandfather was trying to answer some very difficult questions about the Holocaust from his very young granddaughter. He then told the little girl to pick up his suitcase. She commented that she could not do so because it was too heavy for her. “Of course it is, he replied, at your age it is much too heavy a burden for you to carry. Perhaps later on, when you are older and stronger, then you will be able to handle these things”. He had shared with the little girl all that she needed to know and in that regard he was extremely wise.

God HAS told us all that we NEED to know. Just because we don’t understand Him fully does not lessen Him in any way nor does it relieve us (or my children) of the need to obey. Oops!! I think I’m gonna get heat for that one, too!!

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Atheism is a form of arrogance.[/quote]

what, like religion is a form of stupidity.

[quote]Omnivore wrote:
miniross wrote:
Your comments are always welcomed. They may be suspect, but welcome. What you would do to a person who didnt think hypertrophy is possible is supply or get them to learn on the back of EVIDENCE, which is widely documented, and studied in animals as well as humans.

That is the key difference there. It still amazes me how it must be to know all you need to know as He has told You something.

I appreciate being welcome even if my comments are suspect! :slight_smile:
My point exactly! Those who have grown big muscles, and have NO DOUBTS about it’s being possible, are attempting to convince those who don’t believe in it. Likewise, those who have faith in God, based on credible and historical and verifiable evidence, are attempting to show those who are yet to believe.

The believers are attempting to supply the EVIDENCE to learn on. Imagine the surprise they feel when the skinny little atheists won’t believe them.
<just staying with the analogy - save your flames>

None of the things these hypothetical non-believers could possibly say about muscle hypertrophy changes the TRUTH that it is possible.
Not, “I tried it but it didn’t work”,
not" My gym’s hours aren’t convenient",
not “Some people are too fanatical”,
not, “Supplements are too expensive”, not “People die from taking steroids”.

What do all those have to do with anything? Those are excuses and half truths and perceptions. Is muscle growth possible? Of course it is!!! Does God exist? Are you kidding me?

As for your final comment - I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that you don’t have children. :slight_smile: Am I right? I only say that because sometimes, all my kids need to know is what I’ve told them. I don’t always have the time or the need or the desire to fully explain myself. I tell them to wear a hat and gloves when it’s 25 below zero outside because I understand frostbite. I don’t need to explain it in laborious detail. If they simply do what I say, things will go well for them.

I saw a great example of this in a play in which a grandfather was trying to answer some very difficult questions about the Holocaust from his very young granddaughter. He then told the little girl to pick up his suitcase. She commented that she could not do so because it was too heavy for her. “Of course it is, he replied, at your age it is much too heavy a burden for you to carry. Perhaps later on, when you are older and stronger, then you will be able to handle these things”. He had shared with the little girl all that she needed to know and in that regard he was extremely wise.

God HAS told us all that we NEED to know. Just because we don’t understand Him fully does not lessen Him in any way nor does it relieve us (or my children) of the need to obey. Oops!! I think I’m gonna get heat for that one, too!! [/quote]

This is also applicable to concepts such as Evolution et al.

Tyh more i read this thread the more secure i feel in the UK!

Wow. I just read through the entire thread up to here. Pretty impressive.

I was pleased to read many points of view that closely mirror my own. Particularly with respect to the inherent fallacy of the “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” stance of many belief holders.

I think that it is truly hilarious that so many posters have chosen to quote scripture in order to argue with doubters and disbelievers. I also believe that Zeb is being funny on purpose. Bravo, Zeb, bravo!

I have read far more Chuck Norris references than I ever would have expected.

And I laughed until I cried with the quoting from the Book of Inuit.

I believe that my own beliefs are more or less irrelevant to this thread, but I do want to share an observation. It always seems that those who feel the need to scream the loudest for their viewpoints almost always have the least substance to actually substantiate their claims.

Great thread, gentlemen,

Todd