Chr

responses, page 7

This page contains a variety of e-mails. One e-mailer wants me to take down this site. There are a couple oblique threats of eternal torture. One gentleman claimed to be a rocket scientist and dusted off that old creationist saw about the second law of thermodynamics forbidding life and evolution.

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com
responses 1
responses 2a
responses 2b
responses 2c
responses 3
responses 4
responses 5
responses 6
responses 7
responses 8
home

Subj: Questions for you.
Date: 8/16/00 12:08:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello Brooks,

Let me start off by saying that I am a Christian who is questioning why. I am having alot of doubts about the entire "Christian/God" thing and have been looking for information. I have not read alot of the bible, nor do I feel that I am well enoughed informed on anything related. I have been raised Christian and I guess that's where it all started. My questions for you are the following;

Do have any information about the missing body of Jesus of Nazareth?

What about information on the Shroud of Turin?

Have you read the book "The Case for Christ"??? Any help or links would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Steve

Subj: Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief
Date: 9/21/00 12:27:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Steve,

I am terribly sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. In August I was on vacation, this month I started a new job, and I have been a bit more interested in playing computer games than answering e-mail.

Regarding the Lee Strobel book-I have not read it, but I have read an interesting review of the book by Jeff Lowder of the Internet Infidels. Lowder writes that Strobel is very one-sided despite the fact that he is a journalist.

Here is the concluding paragraph of his review:

"Case for Christ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.[35]"

Here is the entire review:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

The Shroud of Turin has been fairly well debunked. It has been shown to be a forged relic created in the middle ages. All sorts of tests have shown the age of the Shroud to be relatively recent and (have also shown) that the stains ( ) have come from some sort of paint. Here is a web site which gives a very detailed examination of the shroud:

http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/skeptical/shroud.html

As far as the empty tomb is concerned, I would suggest reading this article:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/3f.html

I would also recommend searching for articles on the empty tomb on the Secular Web site using their search engine. The site search engine is located here:

http://www.infidels.org/htdig/search.html

If you have nay more questions, let me know. I will try and get back to you sooner than a month : )

Brooks

Subj: Just a quick one for you
Date: 9/9/00 9:42:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello,

I read Response 1 and was agreeable at the start to most of the United Methodist standpoint this person took. I believe he should never have compromised on some of the issues later and that shows his lack of faith that the Bible is inspired by God. I believe you can make a fool out of a lot of people, believers or not. However, God will not be mocked. Everyone will be believers once they die. Unfortunately for some. I have just a few points coming from a sincere street kid, if you will.

First, I think that about 1/2 of your "tough questions" are due to a lack of biblical understanding and taking scripture out of it's context. Much like the United Methodist person said. Another 1/4 of your questions are aimed at human error, misunderstanding and sinfully arrogant "Religious" people who have done a disservice by even associating themselves with true Christian Faith. Religion is man's attempt to reach God. True Christianity is God reaching a lost sinner and saving him because of His love for us. This leaves about 1/4 of your questions debatable from a fair perspective.

In your conversation with Mike (Response 1) the topic of the world being flat came up and this response, along with some others, was not addressed correctly. Isaiah 40:22 states "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...". This was written no earlier than 681 BC, which was far before the Earth was discovered to be round. There are many arguments for Creation rather than Evolution out there and this is just one area where the world eventually catches up to what the Bible has stated/promised. If Evolution was true, we would have a horde of transitional skeletons as proof of this process. However, as it stands we have not 1 reliable skeleton that can truthfully be classified as evidence for Evolution. To find some good stuff look up The Institute for Creation Research. These guys are scientists that do their homework and do not assume things before the evidence brings them to a scientific conclusion.

I want to point you to a few websites that I feel confident can handle your surmises and doubts far better than myself in my own strength (although with God all things are possible for him who believes)

www.Equip.org is a web site for Hank Hennegraff (otherwise known as the Bible Answer Man.) He has a call in radio show in CA and does an excellent job of broadcasting answers that are aligned with God's truth.

www.khcb.org is a Christian radio station in Houston,TX. This station is listener supported, so the programs are not bias or stacked, but remain true to the faith. You can listen on the net.

www.copperfieldbiblechurch.org has a plethora of links helpful for a deeper study of God's word.

I subscribe to the opinion that your past experience in the "Christian Church" was external at best. I have seen, like many others that God does answer prayers, although not always in the way we ask. The road we travel is not one of prosperity or fame, although it might lead there for some. Your opinion is probably that of many out there, even of those who may profess to "believe" as you once did. You may find some good reading in Jude concerning your position (it's only one chapter too). The Bible has always taught Faith by Grace ALONE, however works will be the evidence of that "Saving Faith". You also mentioned Israel, or the Jews, relationship not being explained in the Scriptures. I believe Romans Ch. 9 addresses this issue very candidly. Please remember, as many televangelists have forgot. We cannot know everything God has in mind or will bring to pass. I would have very little confidence in a God whom I could fully understand.

Isaiah 45:18-25

I am not trying to reach you, as some will earnestly attempt too. I simply wish to sharpen my sword and give you some cud to chew on. Hopefully others will realize that it is God who will save you not their words, if it is His ultimate will.

Concerned about Truth,

Tom

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB sweb site
Date: 9/21/00 12:09:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Tom,

Thank for your e-mail regarding my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief. Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner.

There are actually a couple of places in the Bible where the earth is obviously viewed as flat. One instance is the story of Jesus being taken to the top of a very high mountain to be shown all the kingdoms of the earth. Well, clearly, something like this can only happen on a flat earth. Other passages talk about the earth sitting on pillars or foundations, which has not been recorded by any of the space missions yet.

You can say that there are good answers to the tough questions, but unless you can actually provide good answers, there is no reason for me to simply accept your claim. I realize that you just wanted to inform me that there are answers in Christian apologetics, but I honestly do not think that they are. The person who originally posted those questions has gotten responses to them, but they are really, really weak. Christians are perfectly free to send me answers to those questions and I would happily post them on my site.

I think you are giving far too much credit to the ICR. If you study what they write, they do not actually propose any viable explanation for what we see in biology, geology and astronomy. They only attack evolution theory-and geology and astronomy to some degree. Anyone who becomes a member of the ICR has to sign a form which states that he/she will strictly adhere to very clear cut biblical claims about the world and the universe. In other words, ICR members do not do science, but rather they promote theological claims no matter what scientific research reveals to us. That, clearly, is ridiculous. They are not scientists in any conceivable definition of the word. Yes, many of them have degrees in science fields, but are engineers or chemists rather than biologist or geologists, and some of them have even gotten their degrees from diploma mills. Please go to the evolution/origins link on my links page for more info.

I appreciate the links you have provided to Hank Hennegraff's site and the radio stations. They may end up on my links page. I have read quite a number of apologetic arguments, though, and I doubt they have any new ones. I am curious, have you ever read the Christian bible from cover to cover? If not, I would highly recommend that you do.

Also, could I ask you one question? If you had been born in Saudi Arabia or India or Pakistan, what religion do you think you would believe in now?

Thanks again.

Brooks

Subj: Thanks for the terrific web site!
Date: 9/14/00 6:55:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that I really appreciate the time & effort you have taken to put together this web site. It is the first site I have seen like this (now I know about others too), and the information both on your site and in your links is really useful.

I share your views about Christianity and it's "teachings", and our backgrounds are remarkably similar, too! I was brought up in a Lutheran family in a small Iowa town, went to church every Saturday, Wendesday, and Sunday (yeah, that bad). I also went to confirmation (and finished it). I tried real hard to be a good Christian son, but I always had my doubts...

I have always been a critical thinker, and as I grew up I started to question my folks about a lot of the same issues I see on your web site. Of course, they (the Christians) always have nice, pat answers for everything (if they are prepared), but the circular logic, appeals to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and emotionalism got stale real fast. Especially bothersome is their "missionary work" where they go out and find nice, friendly people with their own cultures, ideas, social mores, and religions, who are just minding their own business and getting along fine, then WHAM! now they are saddled with all this bullshit dogma. My folks go all over the world do that, BTW.

There are several big-time Christians where I work and they are constantly reminding everyone of that fact, including me. Whenever conversation turns to politics, social problems, etc and they trot out the dogma, I have to remind them that I don't believe in God. Then we have to go down through the whole "the Bible is/isn't the word of God" discussion. Then on to the Creation/Evolution debate. We have been over the same ground so many times I am just about fed up.

But now, with the added information I got from your site, it should be even easier to keep them at bay. Thanks again, and good luck!

Terry

Subj: The beginning of time & the universe
Date: 9/16/00 11:49:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi Brooks!

I am still reading and enjoying your site - today I am looking at the e-mail response pages. Something on Response Page 2a caught my eye:

To get around the thorny problem of explaining how your god came from nothing, you claim that he has always existed. Always existed? I don't think the idea of eternity makes any sense. What does it mean to talk about time without a beginning? However, granting that the concept of eternity does make sense, why couldn't the universe have "always" existed in some form? If you say that your god has always existed, what did he do in all the time before he decided to create the universe out of nothing? Just sat in a void twiddling his thumbs?

I think these are very good questions and I had another one of my own to add:

If the christian god existed forever, than, in mathematical terms, that would be for an infinite time into the past, right? Thus, the time to create the universe would never have arrived. By which I mean to say that, if you subtract the time that has passed between the creation of the universe and the time it is right now from infinity, you would still have infinity. Assuming that god "always existed", he would have "always existed" for an infinite amount of time before the universe was created, which seems to indicate that the universe was never created (which I know to be false).

This is a question that I have been carrying around since I was about fifteen years old. When I asked my pastor about it, he just explained that god was "timeless" and that time meant nothing to god. Since this is obviously an extremely poor answer, I made up a better answer on his behalf which says: Since time and space are integral, and both together define the universe, then without the universe there is no time. Therefore, asking how much time passed before the beginning of the universe is meaningless.

This explanation, however, contradicts your last question in the above quote. I'm not trying to criticize you or anything like that, I just want to clarify this point. After all, I think we are on the same side :)

There are scientific theories that posit that the universe itself (and thus, time) has always existed! It is possible that the expansion of the universe that we observe may at some point reverse itself due to gravitational attraction (given that there is enough matter in the universe to create the attraction), which would eventually cause all matter to contract into a single point at some very, very distant time in the future. Then, of course, this small, dense, hot point of matter could then re-big-bang and the development of the universe would start all over again. Of course, none of this has been proven, but there certainly is a basis for it, and it is documented by the work of Stephen Hawking, a very famous and knowledgable theoretical physicist from Oxford University.

The reason for bringing this all to you is that you seem to have a good argument against almost anything a christian will say, and I am looking for an argument against the statement: "god has always existed, and created the universe and everything in it." This has been a very difficult one for me to prove false on a technical level. Of course, the bible doesn't have much to say about it, but that isn't much help when arguing with a christian ;) That and the fact that I talked myself out of my old argument are really leaving me high and dry...

Respectfully,

Terry

Subj: Dialog
Date: 9/22/00 3:03:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

If you are really interested in meaningful dialog, I'll accomodate. If you're not, I'll waste neither your time nor mine.

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 2:11:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

I assume you are writing me either regarding my web site or the discussion about Christianity I am having with some people on Guitar.com. I assume you are a Christian who wants to set me right. And I assume this is the first time you have written me. Yes, I am interested in meaningful dialog because I find this whole topic fascinating. Please understand that you are going to have to be original, though, because I think I have heard every standard Christian argument out there.

Thank you for your e-mail.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 6:19:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

For someone with a supposedly open mind, you start off with a lot of assumptions. Some of your assumptions are correct, others are not.

It is the first time I've written you.

I am a Christian, but my objective is not to "set you right." I doubt seriously that I could do that, even if all my points were indisputable, and none of yours would hold water, neither of which will be the case.

It is not my responsibility to be original, only correct. I suspect you're going to going to hear some things for the first time, but only because well-meaning Christians get it wrong so much of the time. To be truly original would be to imply that there simultaneously exist more than one mutually incompatible truths, which is logically impossible.

I doubt I'll hear a whole lot of original material from you, either, but on that chance, I'd like to listen.

If you're still interested, let me know.

Jim T

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 10:14:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Yes, I am still interested.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 2:18:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

OK. Let's start with something simple.

The Christian perspective on Boltzmann's restatement of Clausius' Second Law of thermodynamics is not that human life is a violation of that law, in fact, human life as we can observe is very much a part of that law.

To put it as my atheist graduate Thermodynamics professor did, "The universe is slowly disintegrating into a lukewarm blob." Heat, and arguably all forms of energy, on its own flows from where there is more of it, to where there is less of it, until everything is the same.

The problem that the second law produces is that, for any given system, as algorithmic complexity increases, stochastic complexity must decrease. However, as the second law predicts, and as we can readily observe, it is the stochastic complexity which always increases with time.

How, then, would nature go about reducing the stochastic complexity, in order to permit the increases in algorithmic complexity necessary for the very simplest forms of life? The mechanisms for such a reduction, to my knowledge, are not even postulated, let alone been demonstrated to correlate with the observable facts. Without these mechanisms, spontaneous evolution is at best a half-baked idea. Not saying it couldn't happen, but by the criteria normally demanded of scientific theories, it's not yet viable in any of its current forms.

Just an aside, but Davies' ridiculous statement that "'higher' organisms have higher (not lower) algorithmic entropy..." merely shows his ignorance of the concept of entropy. Entropy is not complexity, but chaos. The uneducated may see them as the same thing, but they're clearly not.

If the onus is on the Christian to prove God, it's certainly incumbent on the non-Christian to explain the evidence as a result of their mechanisms, as well.

Your turn.

Jim T

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 4:09:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

I am not sure that you are using the second law of thermodynamics correctly, but I know what you are getting at. I do agree that the universe is running down or going to a state of equilibrium. Overall, the universe is getting colder and spreading apart. Overall, the trend is towards simplicity from complexity. However, there is nothing in our understanding of physical laws which prevents the natural increase in complexity in an open system, such as earth, which is one part of the universe.

"Without these mechanisms, spontaneous evolution is at best a half-baked idea."

The earth is an open system, with all sorts of energy pouring in round the clock. Your entropy argument does not apply to the earth.

Could I ask you a question? if I am not mistaken, you ultimately want to argue, logically, that the Christian god created the universe. So could you define the term "God" in some coherent, understandable manner?

Your turn.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 6:51:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I agree that the application of thermodynamics directly to information theory is a bit of a stretch, in terms of deductive reasoning. Hell, the second law itself is more of a postulate than a law, anyway, though it does have a frighteningly good correlation with physical observation in all realms, including information. (When's the last time your hard drive un-crashed itself, or a "blue screen of death" suddenly, spontaneously picked back up where you left off?) Neither do I disagree with you that there is nothing in our understanding of physical laws which prevents the natural increase in complexity in an open system, but neither do we observe such a phenomenon in any natural realm, so its likelihood is, at best, suspect.

For me to describe God in some coherent, understandable manner would be rather like an amoeba trying to describe a human in some coherent, understandable manner. I suspect the amoeba would not make such a foolish attempt, so neither will I. All I know for sure is that He's bigger and smarter than me.

The theory that an intelligent, creative force is responsible for this algorithmically complex system is in harmony with what we can physically observe about that system, if not a pleasant prospect for those who would choose to place themselves at odds with that force. It's not derivably true, so it remains questionable, but it does have a good correlation with observable fact. What we observe of the stochastics of that system are a strong indication that, any theory supposing that accidental juxtaposition is responsible for it has an extremely low probability of scientific voracity. In fact, the probability of making it from any one step to the next is so infinitesimally small, I certainly wouldn't advise trying to sell any other theory with as much evidence against it, and I'd strongly advise looking for a much better theory. The only thing I can see that this one has going for it, and from its adherents that I've had opportunity to discuss it with at length is the root of its popularity, is its intrinsic relativistic rationalization of the Machiavellian "freedom" to do as one pleases, without regard to any possible absolute standards.

I'm open to other viewpoints, but this one's too big a scientific stretch even for me.

Your turn.

Jim T

Subj: dialog response
Date: 9/24/00 4:43:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

#### I agree that the application of thermodynamics directly to information theory is a bit of a stretch.####

You didn't just stretch things, you made a claim that is simply not true.

####"Neither do I disagree with you that there is nothing in our understanding of physical laws which prevents the natural increase in complexity in an open system, but neither do we observe such a phenomenon in any natural realm, so its likelihood is, at best, suspect.####

Actually, we do observe this on a daily basis. We see it in the formation of such things as snowflakes, waves, sand dunes, tides, clouds, volcanoes, mountains, planets, the sun, stars in general, etc. We also see it in all forms of life, but, of course, you do not accept that life arose naturally.

####" For me to describe God in some coherent, understandable manner would be rather like an amoeba trying to describe a human in some coherent, understandable manner. I suspect the amoeba would not make such a foolish attempt, so neither will I. All I know for sure is that He's bigger and smarter than me."####

If you cannot describe "God" in some coherent, understandable manner, I would say that you literally do not know what you believe in. If you knew what it was, if it made sense to you in your own mind, then you would be able to describe it. Secondly, how do you "know" that "God" is bigger and smarter than you? Where do you get the information which allows you to say this?

####" The theory that an intelligent, creative force is responsible for this algorithmically complex system is in harmony with what we can physically observe about that system, if not a pleasant prospect for those who would choose to place themselves at odds with that force… What we observe of the stochastics of that system are a strong indication that, any theory supposing that accidental juxtaposition is responsible for it has an extremely low probability of scientific voracity."####

A couple of points. First of all, the "complexity requires a designer" argument is clearly wrong because we observe, on a daily basis, how complex structures can arise naturally in an open system. Secondly, the argument destroys itself because any designer would be infinitely more complex than its creations, and thus, by the same argument, would also require a designer, which would also require a designer, which would…but you get the point I'm sure. So the argument is hypocritical.

####"…not a pleasant prospect for those who would choose to place themselves at odds with that force."####

I think that part of the attraction of Christianity is that believers can feel that they are allied with the most powerful force in the universe, and they can simply clasp their hands together, and give various exhortations and incantations in order to convince this force to provide supernatural assistance in their lives. Wouldn't you admit that this is an attractive idea, as is the idea of living forever in heaven in one's very own mansion? As I recall from my early years as a Christian, these ideas were fairly intoxicating. Anyway, from my perspective, I am not at odds with "God," I simply see it as a non-existent being, a fiction and a mistake.

####"What we observe of the stochastics of that system are a strong indication that, any theory supposing that accidental juxtaposition is responsible for it has an extremely low probability of scientific voracity."####

What is the "probability of scientific voracity" that every animal on the planet was slammed, crammed and vacuum-packed into a 400-foot (+/-) wooden boat during a worldwide flood within the last 3000-4000 years, as per Genesis?

####" The only thing I can see that this one has going for it, and from its adherents that I've had opportunity to discuss it with at length is the root of its popularity, is its intrinsic relativistic rationalization of the Machiavellian "freedom" to do as one pleases, without regard to any possible absolute standards."####

Are you actually saying that you have talked to people who have told you that the reason they don't accept Christianity is because they want to do as they please, without "regard to any possible absolute standards"?

If you have spent any time on my web site, you will be aware that I have often been presented with and have responded to similar claims from Christians. If you have read my opening page, you will understand that I used to be a Christian-I believed and I went to church and I prayed. When I got to my late teens, however, I just couldn't buy it anymore. When I was in my early 20's I actually read the Bible all the way through. I consider myself a fairly regular guy and a decent, moral person. Well, I was sickened and outraged by what I read in the Bible. The actions of the biblical god and its chosen people are amazingly immoral. So when I see Christians appealing to morality in some way to bolster their arguments, I view it as the height of hypocrisy-or ignorance, I don't know which.

So I have two questions for you regarding your appeal to morality:

Please tell me, in the clearest possible way, what you are referring to when you say "absolute standards." Where are these standards located, and what, specifically, precisely, are they.

How is someone who does not believe in "God" able to do ~ as he or she pleases~ anymore than a Christian?

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: dialog response
Date: 9/24/00 9:10:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

The snowflake/wave/sand dune/tide/cloud claims you make are simple aggregations, statistical probabilities governed by simple Newtonian mechanics. The volcano/mountain claim is actually a refutation of your premise, i.e., the only thing we observe is the increase of their total entropy. I'm curious to why you maintain that we can actually observe an increase in algorithmic complexity in all forms of life: please explain.

Far from not knowing what I believe in, I'm just not arrogant enough to believe that anything I can't describe can't exist. If we get to that point, and I doubt that with your prejudice we ever will, I will explain exactly why I believe what I believe, and how I know He's bigger and smarter than me, or you. Both are a whole lot more concrete than you apparently assume.

I did not say "complexity requires a designer", that's your prejudicial assumption based on the oversimplification of the Christian viewpoint as commonly expressed by non-Christians. It denigrates your argument when you assume what my position is without first hearing it. I'm willing to accept an alternative if it is better correlated with the extant evidence than what I have. If you'd be honest with yourself, thus far, you haven't done that. All you've presented is an alternative that takes a whole lot more faith than I have to believe in. You couldn't advance a case of law merely by listening to the defendant's story, and inferring that "it didn't necessarily happen that way." You'd need some believable evidence for an alternative.

I don't need the emotionalism attached to the word "hypocrisy", but I find your statement, "any designer would be infinitely more complex than its creations" extremely interesting, in light of your other claims. We do not observe, on a daily or otherwise basis, how structures of any meaningful complexity arise naturally in any open system. There is a limit to how big a snowflake can get, and it can't grow five-pointed or seven-pointed. It's aggregation is governed by the physical properties of its components. It will never improve on its inherent, pre-existing complexity.

Up to now, I hadn't detected that you are at odds with God, only confused about physics, but it was the stated position of the original proponents of the ideas you hold. However, even you'll have to admit that your interpretation of His immorality clearly puts you in that position.

I also doubt seriously that you spent any years living as a Christian, more likely living with fanciful ideas proffered by a few well-meaning people who didn't have a clue what was real, either. You acceded, not believed. In 'Nam I saw a lot of people pray that never believed. I've read "Bhagavad-Gita" cover to cover, too. Didn't understand it any more than you apparently understood what you read.

Any true Christian will tell you (s)he's not allied with God, but as separated from Him as we can be. I have no guarantee of "living forever in heaven in one's very own mansion", or even of avoiding the eternal punishment of Hell. Not sure where you got that, except maybe from one of the "blab-it-and-grab-it" bunch. Compared to God, not very much separates me from Hitler. By the way, his "friendliness to God" was a Goebbels invention to appease the very large Lutheran segment of the German-Austrian population, not so very different from various politicians' use of God today. Read "Mein Kampf". Hitler hated God, because he firmly believed He was real, and Jewish.

If you've visited a zoo anytime recently, the idea of every animal on the planet that couldn't swim or soar in a well-planned 1.5 million cubit feet for only a year is not much of a challenge, let alone a problem. My "ark" puts up a denser pack five or six times a year, and I have to include their air. And there's plenty of evidence for a diluvian period. These aren't central issues, anyway, just a diversion.

You say you consider yourself "a fairly regular guy and a decent, moral person." By what standard? What determines your standards of ethics or morality? I don't know you well at all, but I'll wager there are many activities you tolerate or even advocate that are clearly at odds with the Pentateuch. If you don't want to feel guilty about it, you've got to get rid of God.

I can't count the number of such conversations as this that end with the phrase, "I can't believe in a God who forbids ," or "I can't believe in a God who allows ." People don't like the idea of a God who isn't answerable to them. Your statement that "I was sickened and outraged by what I read in the Bible" clearly puts you in that category. For the sake of argument, if there is a God, who is He answerable to? You? Me? And why can't He demand whatever He wants? Who's going to tell Him He can't?

Your turn.

Jim T

Subj: Re: dialog response
Date: 9/25/00 12:34:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Before I give a more detailed response, I just need you to answer my two questions on morality, which I will repost:

Please tell me, in the clearest possible way, what you are referring to when you say "absolute standards." Where are these standards located, and what, specifically, precisely, are they.

How is someone who does not believe in "God" able to do ~ as he or she pleases~ anymore than a Christian?

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: dialog response
Date: 9/25/00 4:20:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

explained in the previous e-mail.

Subj: Re: dialog response
Date: 9/25/00 9:30:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Where? Just cut and paste the section of your last letter which deals with these two questions, because I don't see it.

Thanks.

Brooks

Subj: Re: dialog response Date: 9/25/00 3:40:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

(sigh...)

Question 1 answered in paragraph 9. Question 2 answered in paragraphs 9 and 10.

Subj: dialog
Date: 9/26/00 1:16:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX
CC: BBu84
Jim,

Let's see how well your cited paragraphs answer my questions:

The first question was this:

"Please tell me, in the clearest possible way, what you are referring to when you say "absolute standards." Where are these standards located, and what, specifically, precisely, are they?"

####"You say you consider yourself "a fairly regular guy and a decent, moral person." By what standard? What determines your standards of ethics or morality? I don't know you well at all, but I'll wager there are many activities you tolerate or even advocate that are clearly at odds with the Pentateuch. If you don't want to feel guilty about it, you've got to get rid of God."####

Okay, these "absolute standards" are located in the Pentateuch. Where, exactly? And what, specifically, are they? In order to respond to what you are claiming, I have to know what you are talking about. I would say that, in general, my morality and behavior is based on what I see as harmful or helpful to human life.

My other question went as follows:

"How is someone who does not believe in "God" able to do ~ as he or she pleases~ anymore than a Christian?"

####" I can't count the number of such conversations as this that end with the phrase, "I can't believe in a God who forbids ," or "I can't believe in a God who allows ." People don't like the idea of a God who isn't answerable to them. Your statement that "I was sickened and outraged by what I read in the Bible" clearly puts you in that category. For the sake of argument, if there is a God, who is He answerable to? You? Me? And why can't He demand whatever He wants? Who's going to tell Him He can't?"####

Okay, I see. So Christians cannot do whatever they please to do because "God" forbids it, whereas non-believers can do what ever ~they please~ because they do not believe in "God." Is that the gist of what you are saying?

One point regarding this paragraph. Let's say the "God" portrayed in the Bible somehow actually exists. What would its morality be based on? What would prevent this "God's" morality from being evil? "God" could be all-powerful, but this would not mean that "God" was all-good. It could very well be all-evil.

If not, why not?

####" Far from not knowing what I believe in, I'm just not arrogant enough to believe that anything I can't describe can't exist. If we get to that point, and I doubt that with your prejudice we ever will, I will explain exactly why I believe what I believe, and how I know He's bigger and smarter than me, or you. Both are a whole lot more concrete than you apparently assume."####

I would be very interested in seeing you make the effort. I mean, that is your explanation for all there is (right?), so it is quite relevant to this dialog. As I understand it, no one has ever provided a coherent description of what the term "God" is supposed to mean. If that is the case, then using "God" as an explanation for anything is entirely worthless.

Let's return to your first statement about the second law of thermodynamics. You said:

####"The problem that the second law produces is that, for any given system, as algorithmic complexity increases, stochastic complexity must decrease. However, as the second law predicts, and as we can readily observe, it is the stochastic complexity which always increases with time."####

####"How, then, would nature go about reducing the stochastic complexity, in order to permit the increases in algorithmic complexity necessary for the very simplest forms of life? The mechanisms for such a reduction, to my knowledge, are not even postulated, let alone been demonstrated to correlate with the observable facts. Without these mechanisms, spontaneous evolution is at best a half-baked idea. Not saying it couldn't happen, but by the criteria normally demanded of scientific theories, it's not yet viable in any of its current forms."####

I explained to you that in an open system such as earth, entropy can decrease. You appear to be misapplying the second law of thermodynamics. This is all right, though. Many creationists make this same mistake.

The idea that evolution "is not yet viable in any of its current forms" is false. If you care to be more specific as to why you claim this, go ahead. Thermodynamic laws, at least, do not forbid evolution, as should clear.

####"I'm curious to why you maintain that we can actually observe an increase in algorithmic complexity in all forms of life: please explain.####

I am certainly impressed by all your convoluted sentences and technical jargon. Do me a favor and put this in terms I can understand. What do you mean by "algorithmic complexity"? If you could give a specific example of what this term applies to, I'd appreciate it.

####"There is a limit to how big a snowflake can get, and it can't grow five-pointed or seven-pointed. It's aggregation is governed by the physical properties of its components. It will never improve on its inherent, pre-existing complexity."####

A snowflake has "pre-existing complexity"? Really? A water droplet turns into an amazingly complex ice crystal, and you want me to believe that the structure of the ice crytal pre-existed in the water droplet?

####"The volcano/mountain claim is actually a refutation of your premise, i.e., the only thing we observe is the increase of their total entropy."####

So the formation of the Himalayas is an example of increasing entropy?

####"It denigrates your argument when you assume what my position is without first hearing it."####

Well, than tell me what your position is. Stop being so coy and mysterious about what it is that you believe.

####" If you've visited a zoo anytime recently, the idea of every animal on the planet that couldn't swim or soar in a well-planned 1.5 million cubit feet for only a year is not much of a challenge, let alone a problem…And there's plenty of evidence for a diluvian period."####

Are you telling me that there was a worldwide flood within the last 6000 years, and that the Noah's Ark story is true? Far from being a diversion, this is a major testable biblical claim, which has quite significant implications for biology, evolution, and geology-subjects which are very germane to this conversation.

####"I'm willing to accept an alternative if it is better correlated with the extant evidence than what I have. If you'd be honest with yourself, thus far, you haven't done that.."####

"If I would be honest with myself…"?!! (Editor's note: Oops, I shouldn't have put quote marks around If I would be honest with myself. Sorry) You have not even explained what you believe, or what evidence you have for it, so you can't say that.

I will tell you what-I will give an overall explanation of how I think the universe came to be and why it is the way it is today. Then you can tell me specifically what you object to and why. But then I want you to give me YOUR explanation of how the universe came to be and why it is the way it is today. I want to understand how your explanation fits in with the scientific data better than mine.

Okay. The scientific evidence indicates that an event called the "Big Bang" brought our universe into existence 13 to 20 billion years ago. We observe the universe expanding, so we backtrack and see it starting out as a very dense, small point billions of years ago. One of the predicted evidences of the Big Bang is a uniform background microwave radiation permeating the entire universe in all directions. This was discovered in the 1960s.

Where did the Big Bang come from? Just from nothing? Actually, there is reason to believe that it grew out of the formation of a "virtual particle." These particles have been seen to form and disappear in vacuums. The idea is that a virtual particle formed billions of years ago and, rather than disappearing immediatly afterwards, it expanded into the Big Bang. Of course this sounds incredible, but it fits in with our observations and our theories of physics.

Because I am not a physicist, I will cut and paste a description of how the Big Bang may have occurred. This description comes from a physicist named Victor Stenger:

In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

(the quote above comes from here.)

As the universe expanded, matter clumped together because of gravity. As more matter clumped together, it became denser, and hotter and finally collapsed down and ignited into stars. This is the result of perfectly understandable natural laws.

Stars are incredible nuclear furnaces. In our sun, 655 million tons of hydrogen are fused with 650 tons of helium every second, at a temperature of 27 million degrees F. In this reaction, 400 trillion trillion watts of energy are created. Pretty amazing, but a perfectly natural event. Remember, also, that the sun is formed from hydrogen and helium. Did the complexity of the sun "pre-exist" in the hydrogen and helium atoms that compose it?

It took billions of years for stars to form, burn all their hydrogen fuel while manufacturing heavier elements, and finally to explode as supernovae, spraying their atoms into space. Once in space, these elements cooled and accumulated into planets. On at least one planet, earth, life formed. How did this come about? Here is a general outline of how it is believed to have happened:

Stage 1: The formation of the earth and atmosphere is considered the first stage in the long trek from inanimate matter to life. This stage provided the inorganic raw materials for the evolution of life and set up the conditions for their interaction.

Stage 2: The second stage produced organic molecules through interactions between inorganic substances, driven by energy sources such as lightning and ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Stage 3: In the third stage, the organic molecules present assembled randomly into collections capable of chemical interaction with the environment. As the collections formed, interactions taking place within them produced still more complex organic substances, including polypeptides and nucleic acids. Some of these collections of molecules were capable of carrying out primitive living reactions. There is little agreement on the form taken by the first spark of life in these primitive aggregates.

Stage 4: In the fourth stage, a genetic code appeared in the primitive living aggregates. This code regulated duplication of information required for reproduction of the aggregates and established the link between nucleic acids and the ordered synthesis of proteins. Things were still pre-cellular, but with these developments (directed synthesis and reproduction), life was fully established in the molecular assemblages.

Stage 5: The fifth and final stage involves conversion of the pre-cellular assemblages into fully organized cells with a nuclear region and a cytoplasm, all enclosed by an outer boundary membrane--a plasma membrane.

(The quotation above comes from here.)

I know you have major objections to abiogenesis, so here are some links with more information.

http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/CdeDuve.html

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

http://www.looksmart.com/eus1/eus53706/eus537...

Once replicating cells formed, the process of evolution took over, which led to multicelluar life, and the variety of life forms we see today. I don' think there is any point in wasting time discussing evolution, because it is not in dispute. It has been observed.

Of course this is a thumbnail outline of what scientific observations lead us to believe about the beginning of the universe, the formation of stars and planets, and the beginning of life on earth.

If you object to this description or to parts of it, please let me know.

However, remember that I also want you to provide YOUR explanation of the formation of the universe and the stars and planets and life, and see if your explanation fits in better with the scientific data than this one.

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: monolog
Date: 9/28/00 11:31:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX.nasa.gov (T.-1, Jim)
To: Tekministry@aol.com ('Tekministry@aol.com')
Brooks,

So, your morality is based on your personal view of what is harmful or helpful to human life. That's about as subjective a standard as I'm aware of. I doubt you could get any other individual on the planet to agree with you exactly on what that is. Theirs is subjective, too.

You ~please~ to do whatever falls into that very subjective category. It's what you choose to do, not governed by any absolutes.

There's nothing whatever to prevent God from being all-evil or half-good or any other combination. What's your point? Do you punch out the guy with the gun because he might be a bad cop? Do you stand in the railroad tracks and shake your fist at the on-coming train because you don't agree with the color it's painted? Absolutes are not good or bad, just absolute.

Good? Evil? To a very real degree, might makes right, but that aside, instead of blindly pontificating, carefully watch. If you're truly concerned about what is harmful or helpful to human life, and not just your own personal joy-ride, and you're willing to look at the big picture, you'll like what you see.

As I understand it, no one has ever provided a coherent description of what the term "universe" is supposed to mean. If that is the case, then using "universe" as an explanation for anything is entirely worthless. What is "Life"? What is "Morality"? You use a whole lot of concepts you don't have a grasp on, let alone concise definitions for. Most atheists I run across have a pretty good idea of what "God" means. If you're that ignorant, start with Webster's.

As you say, in an open system, entropy can decrease, but not without a corresponding decrease in stochastic complexity. As systems go, the earth isn't all that open, either. It has about the same in-coming and out-going energies, in about the same spectrums. This is all right, though. Many evolutionists make this same mistake.

By the way, my day job is rocket scientist. My business is thermodynamics. There are a handful of people on the planet who understand it as well as I do, mostly Russian, and you're not on that short list. We don't all agree on the implications of the Second Law to "Life, the Universe and everything," because we're not all Christians, but we're unanimous in our observation that, like field theory, its roots go back to something which includes a whole lot more than heat.

There isn't any reason for thermodynamics to forbid evolution. The behavior of that part of the universe which is described by thermodynamics is one indicator of the nature of the universe. The universe runs down, rusts, decays, wears out. It doesn't get better, and that's what evolution theory depends on.

This so-called "technical jargon" isn't for your entertainment, it's the language of the science you supposedly use to justify your conclusions. If you're not familiar with the terminology, you're probably not familiar with the science, either.

The structure of the ice crystal very definitely pre-existed in the water droplet. If you don't know how that works, take a course in crystallography. The shape of all crystals are determined by the various properties of the molecules that make them up. The variations are governed by a mathematical principle called fractals. Since you obviously haven't read Briggs & Peat's "Turbulent Mirror", I suggest you get a copy from your local library and do so. It's a philosophical book, but it serves as a rudimentary layman's introduction to the concepts of chaos theory and included structure.

At the moment, we aren't observing the formation of the Himalayas, only their decay. Increase in cracks, increase in debris, increase, not decrease, in their entropy. I wasn't aware you were around to see just how they were formed. My personal opinion, and it's just my opinion because I wasn't there, is that they were formed by plate tectonics in much the same way as a car's height is increased when it is squashed between two trucks. Now, I may have increased its height, but have I increased or decreased the entropy of the car?

You keep asking what I believe. The real issue is not what I believe to be true, or what you believe to be true. The real issue is what IS true. Unlike you, I need real, currently observable, rational evidence for what I believe. If that's not the ground you want to cover, I don't have the time.

Jim T

Subj: cooperative, fair, thoughtful dialog
Date: 10/2/00 1:10:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

####So, your morality is based on your personal view of what is harmful or helpful to human life. That's about as subjective a standard as I'm aware of. I doubt you could get any other individual on the planet to agree with you exactly on what that is. Theirs is subjective, too. ####

Interesting claims. I am excited to learn how your morality is objective rather than subjective. Could you please explain what your morality is based on?

In your first e-mail you asked if I wanted to engage in "meaningful dialog." I most certainly do. To me, "meaningful dialog" refers to a reasoned exchange of ideas and questions. It means a discussion where there is give and take. If you disagree with something I say, then I would expect that you would present me with your alternative. If you use terms I don't understand, I would expect a clarification of some sort. If you ask me what my morality is based on, and disagree with the basis of my morality, then I would assume that you would provide me with a viable alternative. So far, you have not really done this. You have made mention of "absolute standards" but, despite repeated requests for an explanation for what these are, no explanation has not been forthcoming.

I very much would like to engage in a "meaningful dialog" with you, but you need to work with me just a little bit. I mean how can I respond to your claims if I don't know what you are talking about?

####You ~please~ to do whatever falls into that very subjective category. It's what you choose to do, not governed by any absolutes. ####

Perhaps my morality really is not governed by "absolutes." Maybe your morality is. Again, I am unable to say one way or the other due to the fact that you have not explained what the term "absolute standards" refers to and where these standards can be found.

####There's nothing whatever to prevent God from being all-evil or half-good or any other combination. What's your point? Do you punch out the guy with the gun because he might be a bad cop? Do you stand in the railroad tracks and shake your fist at the on-coming train because you don't agree with the color it's painted? Absolutes are not good or bad, just absolute. ####

So an "absolute standard" could be evil, then? If that were the case, what would be morally "good" about basing one's actions on it?

####Good? Evil? To a very real degree, might makes right, but that aside, instead of blindly pontificating, carefully watch. If you're truly concerned about what is harmful or helpful to human life, and not just your own personal joy-ride, and you're willing to look at the big picture, you'll like what you see.####

Again, please be more specific. What is this "big picture" that I am presumably missing?

#### As I understand it, no one has ever provided a coherent description of what the term "universe" is supposed to mean. If that is the case, then using "universe" as an explanation for anything is entirely worthless. What is "Life"? What is "Morality"? You use a whole lot of concepts you don't have a grasp on, let alone concise definitions for. Most atheists I run across have a pretty good idea of what "God" means. If you're that ignorant, start with Webster's.####

The known universe is a collection of 100 billion galaxies containing stars, quasars, pulsars, black holes, comets, asteroids, planets, interstellar dust and gas. To me and I think most people, this is an acceptable definition of the term. An old Webster's I have describes it as 'the whole system of created things." This definition obviously presumes a creator, but it is still a definition that has some measure of intelligibility. Now let's look at the term "God": "The supreme deity and self-existent Creator and Upholder of the universe. A supernatural being conceived as possessing divine powers or attributes; idol; a person or thing deified or honored to excess."

This definition is not coherent because it uses terms that are not coherent. For example, what is a "deity"? Well, a deity is a god or a divine being. It is circular. The only "beings" that we have any knowledge of are carbon-based, biological life forms that exist on the planet earth. So is "God" such a being? No, "God" is divine and supernatural. What is divine? Divine means, "partaking in the nature of God." Its circular. Divine also means "excellent in the highest degree." Are we aware of any life forms that are "excellent in the highest degree"? No, so applying this attribute to an unknown life form is incoherent. "God" is also supernatural. What is "supernatural"? "Supernatural" is "beyond or exceeding the laws of nature." Are we aware of anything "beyond or exceeding the laws of nature."? I submit to you that we do not. The term "supernatural" is empty of any tangible meaning.

What is "God" made out of? Some theists say that god is not composed of matter and energy like everything else that we know exists, but instead is composed of "spirit." What, exactly, is "spirit"? Nobody seems to know. Like the term "God," the word "spirit," used in this way, has never been elevated to the point of comprehensibility.

So "God" is an inexplicable "being," made out of an undefined substance, which exists in an unfathomable realm. That is not, in any way, an understandable definition of the term "God." If you are a scientist, then you must realize that positing "God" as an explanation for anything is, at best, premature.

####As you say, in an open system, entropy can decrease, but not without a corresponding decrease in stochastic complexity. ####

I am not sure what "stochastic complexity" or what "algorithmic complexity" mean since you have not yet provided a single, precise, real world example of what these terms refer to. I did some searching on the Internet for definitions of these terms, but did not come up with anything useful. Does this terminology have something to do with information theory or logical entropy? I guess what I am asking is for you to tell me what relationship these two terms have with evolution.

By the way, I have never seen these terms used in conjunction with the second law of thermodynamics-a law which is only used to describe molecular energy states in closed systems.

####As systems go, the earth isn't all that open, either. It has about the same in-coming and out-going energies, in about the same spectrums. This is all right, though. Many evolutionists make this same mistake. ####

That claim is a bit hard to accept, but I'll let it go. The point is that the earth is an open system. Here is what you stated in one of your earlier e-mails:

####The problem that the second law produces is that, for any given system, as algorithmic complexity increases, stochastic complexity must decrease. ####

The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to "any system" but specifically to closed systems. Show me a closed system where the second law of thermodynamics is violated, and you'll get my attention.

####By the way, my day job is rocket scientist. My business is thermodynamics. There are a handful of people on the planet who understand it as well as I do, mostly Russian, and you're not on that short list. ####

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

####There isn't any reason for thermodynamics to forbid evolution. ####

Exactly my point. Thank you.

####The behavior of that part of the universe which is described by thermodynamics is one indicator of the nature of the universe. The universe runs down, rusts, decays, wears out. It doesn't get better, and that's what evolution theory depends on. ####

Your statements are absurdly simplistic. Yes, overall the universe is rusting, running down, wearing out. Eventually it will go to a state of equilibrium or total "entropy" (by any definition of the term). That is perfectly understood. This overall trend, however, does not prevent an increase in complexity /decrease in "entropy" (in any definition) in parts of the universe, for limited periods of time. The processes and properties underlying this "increase in complexity" are not mysterious or supernatural. The formation of complex molecules, for example, is perfectly in line with what the second law of thermodynamics predicts:

"The chemical potential energy bound in most of the 20,000,000 known kinds of molecules is LESS than that in their elements….Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes."

This quotation comes from here:

http://www.secondlaw.com/

Again, because complex molecules represent a lower energy state for their component elements-their spontaneous formation conforms to the second law of thermodynamics.

####This so-called "technical jargon" isn't for your entertainment, it's the language of the science you supposedly use to justify your conclusions. If you're not familiar with the terminology, you're probably not familiar with the science, either. ####

I know enough see that you are mistaken. If whatever it is that you are claiming is such a clear cut, dramatic conflict between two highly regarded scientific fields-physics and evolution/biology-then it would have earned the attention of armies of researchers decades ago, all trying to sort it out, all desperately vying to win a Nobel prize. No such scientific effort exists precisely because your supposed *problem* does not exist.

#### The structure of the ice crystal very definitely pre-existed in the water droplet. If you don't know how that works, take a course in crystallography. The shape of all crystals are determined by the various properties of the molecules that make them up. The variations are governed by a mathematical principle called fractals. Since you obviously haven't read Briggs & Peat's "Turbulent Mirror", I suggest you get a copy from your local library and do so. It's a philosophical book, but it serves as a rudimentary layman's introduction to the concepts of chaos theory and included structure. ####

"The shape of all crystals are determined by the various properties of the molecules that make them up." Sure, like anything else. The fusion reaction of the hydrogen and helium atoms of the sun is "determined" by the various properties of the atoms, but the sun did not pre-exist in the atomic structure of the component gases of the sun. The formation of complex and amazingly varied ice crystals where none existed before is governed not just by the molecular properties of water but also by the environment in which they develop and the temperature. And it is a perfectly natural process-like the formation of mountain ranges.

####At the moment, we aren't observing the formation of the Himalayas, only their decay. Increase in cracks, increase in debris, increase, not decrease, in their entropy. I wasn't aware you were around to see just how they were formed. My personal opinion, and it's just my opinion because I wasn't there, is that they were formed by plate tectonics in much the same way as a car's height is increased when it is squashed between two trucks. Now, I may have increased its height, but have I increased or decreased the entropy of the car? ####

Everything wears out, dies and decays. Mountains crumble, people grow old and die, stars use up their fuel and implode or explode, and the universe itself will one day degenerate to a state of equilibrium. So what? This has no bearing on biological evolution.

Secondly, you are misusing the term "entropy" as it applies to thermodynamics. Here is a definition of thermodynamic entropy.

"'For a closed system, the quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work' (emphasis added). So it's a negative kind of quantity, the opposite of available energy."

"Today, it is customary to use the term entropy to state the second law: Entropy in a closed system can never decrease. As long as entropy is defined as unavailable energy, the paraphrasing just given of the second law is equivalent to the earlier ones above. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so its opposite, entropy, can never decrease"

The term "entropy," when it is used in connection with the second law of thermodynamics, refers only to the energetic behavior of atoms and molecules. It was not meant to apply to macro objects, like boulders or mountains or cars. You can crush a car into a cube, and this still would not change the thermodynamic entropy of the atoms and molecules that compose the car:

"Inside disorderly, scattered solid objects -- whose molecules aren't changing at all-- there is exactly the same number of microenergetic states for those molecules as there is in a patterned arrangement of the objects. Whatever pattern the big visible objects are lined up in, it is totally external to the molecules and their behavior. So it is absurd to talk about an entropy change in a group of random solid objects versus the same ones when they were put in some neat pattern. NO entropy change occurs in macro objects when they are altered from ordered to disordered or vice versa."

These quotations come from here:

http://www.secondlaw.com/

####You keep asking what I believe. The real issue is not what I believe to be true, or what you believe to be true. The real issue is what IS true. Unlike you, I need real, currently observable, rational evidence for what I believe. If that's not the ground you want to cover, I don't have the time. ####

Jim, I will discuss these issues with you for as long as you care to. I enjoy this conversation and I hope it continues. The only problem I am having is that you are not making yourself clear. You talk about scholastic complexity and algorithmic complexity, but don't define these terms, or explain what the difference is between the two, or how these terms are supposed to relate to either the second law of thermodynamics or evolution. I have made an effort to find definitions for these terms, but so far I have been unsuccessful. Throw me a bone. Define your terms, give me real world examples of the relationship between scholastic and algorithmic complexity and then explain how you think this relationship somehow conflicts with evolution.

You have made numerous assertions about "absolute standards" but have never explained what these are. How can I respond to statements about "absolute standards" when you don't reveal what the term means?

Despite my occasionally sarcastic tone, I am honestly interested in what you have to say.

Sincerely,

Brooks

Subj: Amazing
Date: 10/24/00 12:35:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi there Brooks.

I'm just writing to express my amazement at your patience. I am a regular at your site and I usually swing by 1-2 times a month to see if you have done any changes. This last visit yielded an interesting discussion between you and a gentleman named Jim. T.

I have seldom seen such an arrogant, demeaning letter and even less often seen a responder that didn't loose his temper. How do you do it? The guy is obviously a loudmouth that happened to see a few fancy-sounding words in a magazine and decided to milk them for all they were worth. His claim that he is a rocket scientist is hilarious considering the many factual errors he commits. Granted that I haven't read thermodynamics in a long time but I don't remember anything being said about "stochastic complexity" Stochastic means roughly random so I fail to see the connection.

The snowflake is most definatly NOT a "simple statistical probability, governed by Newtonian mechanics." NO scientist would describe crystal formation like that. If it was statistical, one would expect at least SOME flakes to have 4-6 edges. Also, what has Newtonian mechanics to do with this? Gravity is disregarded when talking about chemistry and the flake is a result of the way water molecules look like and attach to each other. Since this is a result of electromagnetic forces, one would be much more correct in stating it depended on Maxwellian principles, but that too, would be more wrong than right. The second law of T, on the other hand, is a direct result of statistical events and probability.

Statements such as: "Since you obviously haven't read Briggs & Peat's "Turbulent Mirror", I suggest you get a copy from your local library and do so." does not make him appear less arrogant and his I-knowth-better-than-thou attitude combined with his obvious ignorance would have made me ask him to piss off a long time ago. It is not our job to educate people in common courtesy but I admire you for (trying to) do it all the same. Have a nice day.

Johan

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/26/00 12:05:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Johan,

I am glad you enjoy my site.

Initially I thought I would have a long and entertaining discussion with Jim T. But he stopped responding. I am neither a scientist nor an expert on thermodynamics as he claimed to be (ha ha), but it was easy enough to see that his main argument was just that tired old creationist' thermodynamics fallacy disguised with a bunch of convoluted technical jargon. His appeal to morality, likewise, was fallacious.

Yes, his tone was really arrogant and obnoxious, especially in light of the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about. But it was hard to get upset about his tone precisely because he was so obviously wrong. The way I figured it, the more this guy wrote, the more he gave himself away.

I did enjoy his threat (The theory that an intelligent, creative force is responsible for this algorithmically complex system is in harmony with what we can physically observe about that system, if not a pleasant prospect for those who would choose to place themselves at odds with that force) and his under-handed character attack (If you're truly concerned about what is harmful or helpful to human life, and not just your own personal joy-ride…). I love that stuff.

Thanks for your e-mail. I will add it to that e-mail page one of these days.

Brooks

Subj: To Each His Own
Date: 9/30/00 10:38:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

The fool truly has said in his heart, "There is no God". Now answer this one if you can. For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give it exchange for his soul? You sound mighty confident in your position. Think about this-- Why do you go to such great efforts of wasting your time to prove something that you obviously don't believe is true. Let me give you a hint-- If the Gospel (Jesus) be hid it, it is hid to those that are "LOST". You see, no man can come to Christ unless the the Holy Spirt (God) draws him. You do not choose Christ, he (Christ) chooses you. Hopefully you will reconsider your choice. If not, as the Bible says, "God will not always strive with spirit of man but will give him over to a reprobate mind". I will pray this is not your case. I will Pray for you that you can be delivered from your darkness before it is eternaly to late. Feel free to respond.

Subj: Re: To Each His Own
Date: 10/1/00 1:05:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Greg,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief. I apppreicate that you are praying for me-I certainly am glad you care for me.

As I make abundantly clear on my site, I used to be a Christian, I have read the Bible from cover to cover, I have talked with numerous Christians over the last few years, and I still think Christianity is absolute nonsense. If there is something specific on my web site which you disagree with, or if there is something on my site which you think you can show me is factually or logically wrong, please let me know. Simply repeating Bible verses to me is not going to change my mind about your religion.

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Wow
Date: 10/1/00 1:50:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX To: Tekministry@aol.com

Mr. T.,

Great site, you have put much effort into it and it shows. Although I am a confirmed Catholic, I am always wanting to understand the issues that call Chrisianity into question. Your site has provided me with more than ample material to digest. I could not decipher all of it if I had fifty years to spare. Anyway, you are obviously a searcher, as am I, and a very diligent one at that. I never hold my beliefs to be inerrant and am always searching for truth myself, even if it is hard to take. I just wonder, will you enjoy hell? No, this is a joke. No one down here can judge who will or won't go to hell, should such a place even exist.

Anyway, though my faith in the supernatural is solid, as I have experienced some pretty creepy stuff, my understanding of the nature of God is limited and confused. I think your site has captured all of my qualms with the Christian faith (and then some!) and deserves my greatest respect. Keep up the good work. If we cannot defend our faith, then why believe it? For fear of hell? I don't think this is productive or reasonable. A friend of mine has put together a pretty darn good site where he delves into most of the problems with Christianity. His page is definitely worth visiting. It is:

http://smithbrad.nventure.com/home.htm

You might find some more material there, also some new ideas. Take it easy and keep the "faith."

Sincerely,

Craig

Subj: Nothing new!!
Date: 10/1/00 1:46:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

I am sorry you feel the way you do. It is sad that you have bought into the naturalist worldview. "Science will solve all our problems." Unfortunately, science can not only not achieve this but they have created more problems than they will ever solve. Science was not created to solve our problems or to disprove the existence of a creator. Science was created by Christian so they/we could study the creation and the deeds of God. Does God exist and does He do things? You know in your heart He does. Take time to see His creation.

Examine the things of this earth that could not exist by chance. If you were walking along a road and found a watch, would you not assume a watchmaker. A complex mechanism such as a watch can not construct itself by use of matter that cannot create itself(The first law of thermodynamics) and time.

Look at the vision and guidance system of the monarch butterfly. For that matter look at the human eye.

Have you read "Darwin's Black Box?" Evolution at the molecular level is impossible. No reputable scientists even believe in evolution any more. They, except for the old and nearly extinct, realize that the asd a theory it has been dismissed. What is left? Intelligent design.

I am not looking to argue with you and I don't expect to convince you with this letter. I hope you will just take the time to answer the most important question that will ever come your way. How did you get here and where will end up?

God really does love you desptie your deception. I hope you will turn over every rock. I commend you on your belief system. At least you believe something. Most people today believe that everyone is correct(Post moderns/PC) and that is sheer craziness. If belief conflict they cannot both be right.

Take care and I hope to hear from you. May the God of the universe hear my prayer and call to you in the darkness.

Pardon the Christianese, but, God Bless You!!!

Scott

Subj: comment
Date: 10/2/00 7:38:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
Reply-to: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello,

Just a line to say that I found your website a complete waste of time. It is not unusual that you cannot understand God. A blind person cannot be expected to understand light. If, as you say, there is no God, then why would you need to spend valuable time arguing against His existance?

You are obviously a very self-centered individual, or else maybe your self-esteem is so low that you feel a need to bring God down to your level.

Jim

Subj: Re: comment
Date: 10/3/00 2:11:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Actually, if you take the time to glance through the opening page of my web site, you will see that I used to be a Christian and I have read the Bible. Have you read it? I suspect that you have not, otherwise you probably would understand why I put up this site.

In any case, just so you are clear on this, I'll explain why I put up this site. A couple of years ago I came to the realization that Christianity was nothing more than a sick con game. I had trouble conveying this idea to Christian acquaintances, who thought there was something terribly wrong with me. It was frustrating. Then the Internet came along, and I got a computer and somehow figured out (how) to put up simple web pages. Now I had a way to collate information and link together various sources of information on Christianity-information that most people are not aware of. Information that my Christians acquaintances were not aware of. After wasting so much time and enduring so much frustration dealing with Christians criticizing my views or trying to convert me, I now could explain and defend myself by putting my thoughts into somewhat coherent bits of writing and using a wide range of supporting materials from the Internet.

Of course, I encourage Christians to e-mail me and try to convert me, or simply to point out where I am wrong on the site. If there is good evidence for Christianity or if my arguments or information are faulty, I certainly want to know. So if you see something specific that you object to, or if you think that I am overlooking pertinent facts, or that I am making a clear mistake in what I write, please let me know.

In any case, I wish you well.

Sincerely,

Brooks

Subj: Question
Date: 10/3/00 11:06:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I received an email from you today that I think you meant to send to my dad (who evidently made some comment about your website). I don't know why the message was sent to me unless he left my address instead of his, but your reply to it aroused my curiousity. I'd be interested to visit your website too if you'll send me the address. I did show my dad the email and he said that he had made a comment on your website so I think I'd like to see it for myself.

Thanks,

James

Subj: Re: Question
Date: 10/3/00 1:39:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To:XXXXXX

James,

Here is the link. On this page, I briefly describe why I put the site up.

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/home.htm

I hope you find it interesting, if nothing else.

Have a good one-

Brooks

Subj: The Bible is not stupid
Date: 10/4/00 6:53:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:XXXXXX
Reply-to:XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Since you really do not KNOW if there is a God or not, what causes you to come down on the side of unbelief?

You e-mailed my son that you were formerly a Christian? What changed your mind? Tell me the exact point in time when you doubted God and tell me what or who caused it?

My e-mail is XXXXXX. You need not worry about having an argument with me. I would no more feel a need to argue the existence of God than I would the existence of air. Both are necessary for life whether people see them or not, feel them or not, or believe in them or not.

Incidentally, I have read the Bible several times and continue to study it. Is there any specific teaching in the Bible that has given you a problem? Most people who are of your persuasion do feel that the Bible is a problem for them.

Enjoy Life!

Jim

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB seb site
Date: 10/8/00 1:05:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

There was not a single "Eureka" moment when I realized Christianity was false. It just gradually became clearer and clearer as I learned more about history, culture, science and psychology. The final nail in the coffin came when I actually read the Bible. That made me lose any lingering respect for Christianity that I might have had.

For your benefit, I will outline just a few of the problems with Christianity. First of all, the term "God" is never defined. So when Christians assert that "God" exists, they literally don't know what they are talking about. If you think I am wrong on this, go ahead and try to define the term in some understandable way. I don't think you can.

There is no evidence for the miracle claims made in the Bible. I mean, do you really believe in the Adam and Eve story and Noah's Ark story?

Christianity has taken many story elements from previous religions. In other words, it took successful parts of earlier myths and created a new mythology. The December 25 birth of Jesus and his Easter resurrection are just two examples.

The ideas promoted by the Bible are ridiculous. For example, the biblical god supports slavery, orders massacres of children, demands animal sacrifices, and threatens to smear excrement on people's faces. I mean, don't you find these things just a little troublesome?

I could go on and on. In a nutshell, I do not see evidence for Bible claims, I see Bible claims contradicted by the facts of reality, and the Bible contains the clearly absurd beliefs of very ignorant and superstitious primitive, barbaric people. For more details, I would suggest that you read the article on my site entitled "Why Humanists reject the Bible." It is located here:

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/why.htm

If there is anything unclear about anything I have said, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Brooks

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB seb site
Date: 10/12/00 1:24:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Actually, I absolutely believe in the fact of Adam and Eve as well as the fact of Noah and the ark. While the Bible needs no outside support to be the truth, there are indeed other reasons why you may want to realize the truth of these accounts. While I do not think the Bible teaches that Jesus' birthday is December 25th, the erroneous traditions of certain groups do not change the truth of scripture. I would no more try to define God than I would try to define you. I have never seen God or you. I do not know exactly how either of you form your thoughts or intentions. I do know from communicating and receiving answers from both of you that both of you are persons. God is my Creator, my King, my Bridegroom, my Friend, my Counselor, my Owner, my Father. He is many other things to many other people and it depends on whom you speak as to what is His relationship with them. As to the slavery issue, I would need to know the specific instances to which you refer before replying. The innocent animals as well as nations (not just children, but entire cities) were sacrifices which were pictures of the coming death of God's own Son for us. I may explain this further when I have more time and would prefer to do it by telephone if you really want to know. Until I received understanding on these subjects, they seemed strange to me as well. (You may phone me at XXXXXX during business hours) As for massacre of children, the existence of barbarian, primitive, uneducated, ignorant people, we are living among more of those folks now than ever before. As a matter of fact, the massacre of children is now protected by US law. Do you believe that any thing is right or wrong? If so, please give me an example and tell me why. Thanks. Have a nice day!

Jim

Subj: hello from the CBBB web site
Date: 10/16/00 1:56:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Just wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten about you. I don't know if I will call, but I will definitely get back to you about your last e-mail. I am just busy with a number of things at the moment.

Later-

Brooks

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/22/00 10:34:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84 To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.

So you believe in Noah's Ark. Based on one of Jesus' geneologies given in the Gospels, this occurred within the last three thousand years:

LUKE 3

God, Adam, Seth, Enos, Ca-i'nan, Maha'lale-el, Jared, Lamech, Shelah, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Shem, Arphax'ad, Ca-i'nan, Eber, Peleg, Re'u, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni, Admin, Ammin'adab, Nahshon, Sala, Bo'az, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan, Mat'tatha, Menna, Me'le-a, Eli'akim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Elie'zer, Joshua, Er, Elma'dam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, She-al'ti-el, Zerub'babel, Rhesa, Jo-an'an, Joda, Josech, Sem'e-in, Mattathi'as, Ma'ath, Nag'ga-I, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathi'as, Joseph, Jan'na-I, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus

Do you think there was a worldwide flood with the last three thousand years? Also, when was the Adam and Eve fiasco? Was that before or after the dinosaurs?

You have no reason to doubt my existence. I am merely a human being who has responded to your e-mail. You know human beings exist, you know that people exchange e-mails, and you have received a reply from me. It is not a stretch to believe that I exist. However, this is not comparable to the existence of a "God." In the first place, the term has never been defined. While you may have had experiences that you attribute to "God," you have to realize that religious believers of all religions have personal experiences of their gods. Do countless gods exist, then? No, because religions are exclusionary. And you cannot use personal experience to convince someone else of your belief.

Something that I consider morally wrong? Keeping slaves "forever."

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

Morality is based on what harms or hurts people.

Brooks

Subj: your wonderful website
Date: 10/11/00 9:49:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
Reply-to: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com ('Tekministry@aol.com')

Hi Brooks!

Thank you, thank you for your wonderful site! I discovered your site when I began my studies into Christianity and the bible, trying to figure out why on earth any human being would believe such a load of crap. Your site is a great resource. I have been educating myself on the bible and Judeo-Christian religion lately due to a friend's sudden conversion to Christianity, then Judaism. Someone I thought was intelligent, rational and well-educated stunned me by doing such an un-intelligent thing and it got me all fired up. I have been a pagan/witch/wiccan for a few years and so have battled with the problems facing pagans from the intolerant Christian community. My bible studies, however, have led me to question even my pagan beliefs, and I think I'm on the road to espousing athiesm! And as a biologist by training, my scientific side has made me a great skeptic!

Anyhow, as I learn more, I find myself looking for ways to counter Christian claims and answers. You present your arguments so well (something I'm not so good at)...ever thought about writing a book? I'm curious to know how you answer a Christian who explains Biblical inconsistencies or impossibilities with something like "Well, it's God. He can do anything!" As in, God can suspend the laws of physics, etc. etc.? What would you counter with?

So, thanks for giving the world some sanity! I'll keep visiting.

BTW...reading the Bible, only on Exodus, but horrified at some of God's commandments (like rules about what to do when selling your daughter into slavery!)

later,

Jo (fellow Washingtonian)

"I revolted in spirit against the customs of society and the laws of the state that crushed my aspirations and debarred me from the pursuit of almost every object worthy of an intelligent, rational mind."

Emily Collins, Women's Suffragist

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/15/00 7:51:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jo,

I am glad to know that a another Washingtonian enjoyed my web site. Thanks for your compliment on my writing skills-you are really being far too kind though.

The "God can suspend the law of physics" claim is interesting. I guess you could ask the person how he or she knows that "God" can do this. Did the person see the laws of physics actually suspended by "God"? Have we ever seen the laws of physics suspended? If the person says that the Bible provides instances where this occurs, then the person can be asked whether it is more likely that the laws of physics were suspended or whether the ancient, superstitious person who wrote the story was fibbing a bit. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence. Another thing to do is say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn caused the event in question to occur. If the person asks you to support this claim, tell the person that you have faith that it is true. If the person says, well, the Bible provides evidence that "God" did it, ask this person why anyone should believe the account in the Bible. After all, we cannot question the person who made the claim in the Bible. And with regards to all the miracle claims of the Bible, there is no corroborating evidence or alternative sources that support them.

Usually when a person makes a claim like this, he/she leaves the realm of rational discussion. Unless the person can directly demonstrate the laws of physics being violated by "God," then nobody has any reason to accept the claim. Apart from finding some instance of physics being overthrown, a big problem is actually explaining what the term "God" means. Unless the term is defined-and it never has been-then the statement "God suspends physical laws" is incoherent.

I would recommend that you visit the link on my site to the "Impossible God" article. It has some relevance to this subject. It explains in a pretty clear way that the attributes given to the biblical god are mutually contradictory. The article is located here.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html

Have a good day.

Brooks

Subj:
Date: 10/18/00 7:33:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

I've read some of your responses pages and I have to ask you do you feel like I do in wanting to jump through your computer and grab some of these people round the neck' and shake them till they wake up and learn to think with their own brains instead of falling onto the insipid "Jesus loves you" approach to life

Great site, always come back to it, great links too

Paul B

Australia

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/18/00 10:19:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Paul,

Yes, I feel that quite a bit. I am having a conversation with a guy now who admitted that personal experience can not convince anyone who does not have the experience-but now he is sending me all these examples of his personal experiences. For example, when he (was) a kid there was a dark presense in his doorway-ooohh scaaarrryy. What am I supposed to do with that? Am I supposed to devote my life to Jesus now? Another guy I am talking to annouced with pride that he accepts the Noah's Ark story. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother putting my e-mail address up.

In any case, I am glad you like the site.

Take it easy.

Brooks

Subj: powerful argument
Date: 10/18/00 2:13:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi there!

I just got finished reading some of your webpage and I have to tell you, I was so deeply shook that I almost threw up. Let me explain, I too once called myself a Christian and recently I have found myself in bondage because of my past thoughts and beliefs. I sometimes worry that I may be condemning myself by not agreeing with the religious fanatics, but my doubt outweighs this fear. I recently spoke to a pastors wife at a prominent local church and she said that it was very unfortunate that I allowed myself to become skeptical. I tried to clarify to her that I did not allow myself to question biblical/doctrinal fallacies but instead they happened naturally (Our "god-given" brain was meant to be used wasn't it?). She warned me that Eve also questioned God and to remember what happened to her(oooo..sounds like a threat doesn't it?). She said that we must rely on faith and not reason or proof. I can not "in good faith" allow myself to do this. Nobody can prove that there is a God. I choose to believe that there is...but, just because I don't subscribe to someone else's brand of spirituality(Christianity) does not make me misinformed or unfortunate. Christians need not pity me for my skepticism. The focus should be on themselves and fulfilling there destiny in any way that they choose. If the Christian faith gives them a feeling of wholeness then I encourage them them to continue in there pilgrimage. Everyone is free to come to there own conclusions on what life is all about and where we are headed after life as we know it is over. Eternal life, reincarnation, nothingness whatever.

In conclusion:

This is real: neither you nor I know beyond a shadow of a doubt if the Christian God of the Bible is real. Isn't that the first step in understanding anything? I appreciate your webpage and the tremendous argument that it gives. Knowledge is definitely power, it gives people the power to comprehend and think for themselves. Remember that even your own thoughts about God will evolve over time. You never know what lies in store for you. God forbid Jesus comes to you in a dream tonight and you convert yourself to Christianity once again. Ha! won't that be a great testament for Christians? Anyways, thanks for your webpage and I hope that your life is going well for you. Stay alert, and open-minded and here's some advice: don't ever forget to follow your heart as well as your mind. By.

Subj: Bigots!?
Date: 10/20/00 5:41:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

You, quite rightly. condemn religious bigotry..........

Did it, could it, possibly occur to you that you yourself are a hate driven bigot?

Subj: Re: Bigots!?
Date: 10/21/00 1:17:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Dr. Hicks,

If I am a hate-driven bigot, what is it that I hate?

Brooks

Subj: your guestbook entry
Date: 10/21/00 3:46:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Kimberly,

I was checking the guestbook for my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief, and I saw the message you left. I felt I needed to drop you a note. If you have read through my site, you will realize that I used to be a Christian. I took the time to read (through) the Bible and it really shocked and disgusted me. The biblical god murders children, it supports slavery, it constantly orders the massacre of men, women and children, and, as you alluded to in your guestbook entry, it tortures people for eternity in a place called hell.

I would urge you to think about what you wrote in my guestbook-threatening me with eternal torture-and then think about the sentence "I am wondering how you live with yourself and these beliefs." Compare and contrast those two sentiments, turn them over in your mind for a while, and see if you can't detect a smidgen of irony.

Read the Bible is you haven't already, and have yourself a great day.

Brooks

Subj: Re: your guestbook entry
Date: 10/21/00 4:34:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

Show me in the Bible where God tortures and kills...and I did not threaten you...you threaten yourself you are the only person who decides whether you want to be saved or not if you choose not to be saved then you will be condemned to hell on the judgement day if you have not let Jesus in your heart! The Lord doesn't torture you he gives you a choice and if you choose not to be saved and follow him you are the one torturing yourself. Thank you and God Bless.

Subj: Re: your guestbook entry
Date: 10/21/00 5:26:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

File: CRUELT~1.MHT (59492 bytes)
DL Time (49333 bps): < 1 minute

Kimberly,

Here is a list of biblical atrocities you might want to take a gander at.

Click here: Cruelty and Violence

Think about it.

Brooks

Subj: Re: your guestbook entry
Date: 10/23/00 7:29:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

Have you ever stopped to think God does things for a reason?? And Like with Abraham he supplied a lamb instead of Issac this was a test from God to Abraham! I don't know how you can once be a christain then one day all of the sudden stop believing the word of god? Were you even saved? That is a crazy question because a saved person would not defy god or even think such a thing! God gave his son would you do the same? Fraid not....well thank you for your time and lies. God Bless and I will be praying for you!

Subj: Yahweh
Date: 10/24/00 7:57:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
Reply-to: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Dear Brooks,

I love your website! You say you don't believe Yahweh is/was real. Have you read Zecharia Sitchin's books? I've read all of them and by the time I was finished there was do doubt in my mind that the god the Sumerians called Enlil is the very same god we know as Yahweh/Jehovah. Sitchin's books are based on what the Sumerian tablets have to say. They don't have very many nice things to say about Enlil/Yahweh. Anyway, the reason I left Christianity for good is because I am female and a bastard to boot. I refuse to accept as my master a god who loves to degrade women and loves to punish innocent people up to the 10th generation. Deut. 23:2. He also openly admits he creates evil - Isaiah 45:7. In my opinion, organized religion is the biggest scam in the history of mankind. Oh, by the way, an ancient coin was found which depicts the image of Yahweh. It should have made front page headlines. So why didn't it? Because the opposite side of the coin is a HUGE embarrassment to the church. It says Yahweh was the consort (spouse) of the goddess Asarte, often referred to as the Earth Goddess. Anyone interested can see this coin at

http://www.scitec.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/book/orsin/origsin2.htm

How about a little quiz. Who am I talking about? He was born to a virgin by immaculate conception through the intervention of a holy spirit. This fulfilled an ancient prophecy. When he was born the ruling tyrant wanted to kill him. His parents had to flee to safety. All male children under the age of two were slain by the ruler as he sought to kill the child. Angels and shepherds were at his birth and he was given gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. He was worshipped as the saviour of men and led a moral and humble life. He performed miracles which included healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out devils and rairing the dead. He was put to death on the cross between two thieves. He rose from the dead on the 3rd day and ascended up into heaven. Jesus, you say? WRONG!! He was the saviour god known as Virishna, who lived 1,200 years BEFORE Jesus is claimed to have been born. In fact, if you research ancient history, you will not just find this saviour but MANY MANY others. Most of course were born to virgins, on Dec. 25th, were the son of God, etc., etc., etc.

Sincerely,

Barb

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/26/00 12:05:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Barb,

Thank for your interest in my web site.

"Anyway, the reason I left Christianity for good is because I am female and a bastard to boot…."

Barb, Barb, the OT rules were simply made for the Israelites who lived in danger from their enemies. God had to to do what he did and had to make the rules that he did to protect his chosen people. Context, context, context! Don't let your 21st century ideas of compassion, mercy and justice grotesquely distort you view of God's plan for the ancient Israelites. (snicker : ))

The fact that Christianity is simply a copy of older religions is just blatantly obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at these older religions. You can show these older religions to Christians, point out the obvious parallels, tell them how certain dates and story elements were chosen to appeal to pagans, and on and so forth, and they will still deny that there is any connection whatsoever. I find this to be rather astounding.

One of the things I would like to do is collect links to sites about these older religions that parallel Christianity. Your link will be a help in this. If I get a chance, I will look for that book.

Thanks again.

Brooks

Subj: christianity
Date: 11/10/2000 11:52:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

Dear Brooks

My name is george and i came across your website while searching for something else. the reason for this email is because i felt so much hurt for you. i didnt read all of your site but i did get the point. i doubt if u have ever met a christian or have even seen one for that matter. u wont find us on tv or even in the audience of these fake christians. christianity is very simple to understand its love plan and simple. i wont go into debating u on anything here but u have to ask yourself one question, what if its true. the reason why so many people are lost is because of these fake people and entire sects of false religions , catholic religion being one of the worst of all. God is real and he manifests the holy spirit in our hearts so that there will be no question as of his existence. you have an opinion , but so does 6 billion other people on this planet. the fact remains that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that he is lord. do not let yourself be on the receiving end of gods wrath. our salvation is in our own hands and not in the hands of false prophets. if u would have put a tenth of the effort that u into this page, into sincerly seeking god u would have the truth by know.

george

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB website
Date: 11/12/2000 10:58:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

George.

Despite what you wrote in your e-mail, I do know Christians, I have talked to Christians, and I used to be one myself. There is nothing loving or kind about Christianity. It is a sick falsehood. It contradicts itself and is contradicted by reality. You tell me that I should be afraid of God's wrath. Can't you see how evil it is to threaten people with eternal torture for their thoughts? Wake up-Christianity is a delusion.

Brooks

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 11/19/2000 3:11:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Thank you for your e-mail. Below is my response. I have put my comments in bold.

Brooks

###################################

Subj: Your website
Date: 11/14/2000 8:55:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To:Tekministry@aol.com

First off, let me say that I have no desire to convince you that Christianity is the truth, much less that it's the Truth. I personally am an agnostic, though I respect the Christian faith in many ways. There are many ways in which it disgusts me, as well. However, what bothers me about your website is the total lack of respect it shows for the Christian faith.

I don’t have any respect for something which is so clearly false and which threatens people with eternal torture (simply) because of their thoughts.

You seem to delight in offending Christians. The "portrait" of God is particularly distressing. What does it have to do with anything? Pointless shock value, just like heavy metal bands and Beavis & Butthead.

The biblical god murders children, it supports slavery, it orders the massacre of men, women and children, and, of course, it promises to torture people for eternity because of their thoughts. What shocks me is that grown adults could devote their lives to worshipping such a sadistic monster.

Look, we've all been told that Christianity is the One True Path and that we're going to Hell unless we "embrace Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior." I hate it, too. I am not fond of mainstream Christianity, nor am I fond of Fundamentalism. The whole reason I'm an agnostic is that I don't ever want to be in the position of telling someone that their faith is total crap, except in cases where it shows obvious moral violations, such as, say, Nazism.

Well, unlike you, I don’t have any problem with telling Christians that their religion is demented nonsense.

Which brings us to your website. You are someone telling people that their faith is complete crap, and you cite these quotes as proof of obvious moral violations. I guess the problem here is that while there are a lot of respectful, well-thought out arguments against Christianity that hold my attention, yours is reactionary, juvenile, and blindly, even faithfully, liberal. I'm far to the Left myself, and it bothers me to see someone I might be identified with using such poor arguments.

I suspect that you are not an agnostic but rather a Christian pretending to be an agnostic.

First of all, these quotes are taken totally out of context. That's one of the huge problems when people quote the Bible, and this is the exact same way that Biblical arguments against homosexuality and female equality are formulated. You are, in essence, stooping to their level. An example of a quote that is blatantly and obviously out of context is John 1:4, "O, woman, what have you to do with me?" He's just addressing her as woman here, and he's asking her this based (I would assume, not being overly familiar with John) on the fact that she's mortal, not on the fact that she's a woman.

Do you disagree that the Bible treats women as third class citizens?

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

Timothy 2:11

"It is well for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Corinthians 7:1

Secondly, many of these quotes are not in any way offensive or worrying. For example, 1 Corinthian 3:20, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." To criticize this quote is to criticize the belief that God is greater than man. If you're assaulting one of the main tenets of the religion, you may as well do it openly and intellectually. In short, this quote is only offensive to someone who disagrees with its primary idea, an idea that crops up everywhere in Christianity. It's similar to Thomas Aquinas' proof of the existence of God, which was only proof if you accepted it faithfully. You're only convincing those who don't need it.

This quote is an example of the Bible belittling human intelligence. The point of belittling human intelligence is to elevate faith. The point of elevating faith is to increase the acceptance of biblical claims: acceptance of biblical claims is urged on the basis of faith rather than reason.

Thirdly, I notice that you quote a lot from the Old Testament, the later New Testament, and the Gospel of John. The Old Testament mostly reflects the culture and values of the ancient Hebrews, and generally has little or no bearing on modern Christianity-- not to mention little or no bearing on modern Reform Judaism. The Old Testament is, in the vernacular, weird. It's about a vengeful, animistic, sacrifice-demanding, head-thumping pagan God (no offense intended to modern Jews of course, although I think that most of the best stuff about Judaism comes from the Talmud, and the fact that they get it straight in Hebrew, keeping many of the concepts undiluted). Why's it in there? I don't know. But you can't criticize the whole book based on its inclusion.

Whoa, wait a minute. The Bible is about 75% OT. Saying that someone can't criticize the Bible because of the OT is ludicrous. I think the reason the OT makes up so much of the Bible is that Christians really didn't have any of their own material, so they had to make their beliefs appear more respectable by filling the Bible with ancient, revered religious texts.

By the time the Gospel of John was written, Christianity had turned to anti-Semitism, and it's also really badly written. I don't generally trust the Gospel of John. But at least the later Gospels didn't make the cut. In some of those, Jesus kills children for touching him, brings clay pigeons to life, flies, and breathes fire. The Bible does have a little discretion, it seems.

Paul was kind of a jerk. Notice how many of your quotes de-emphasizing the role of women come either from Paul's letters (or the Old Testament)? Paul says some good stuff, but mostly, it can be disregarded.

If most of Paul’s writings can be disregarded, then why are they in the Bible in the first place?

The key to reading the Bible is to know when it's talking about universal maxims of faith and when it's talking to the very specific situation. The Revelation (it's not Revelations, as most seem to think) was actually a political commentary about Rome, never intended as any sort of prophecy. The whole business with the End Times seems a little silly to me because of this.

Some of these quotes hinge on lousy translation in addition to misinterpretation, a lousy translation that is more or less universal. The whole deal about hating your father and your mother may stem from the fact that Hebrew had no comparitive. All Jesus probably meant was that you had to love him more than you love your family or yourself, which, if you accept the basic tenets of Christian faith, is totally reasonable (see above).

Unless you are Jesus, you can’t tell me what he meant by those words, assuming, in the first place, there was a Jesus who actually said these things. Another thing to consider is this: Jesus was supposed to have been a Jew who spoke Hebrew, yet the NT was written in Greek. Assuming Jesus existed, assuming that he had biographers following him around carefully transcribing everything he said, how would it be possible for us to know how well the Hebrew was translated into Greek and from Greek into English? And then, on top of this, the larger question is which Bible is the correct Bible? Which of the thousands of Christian denominations and sects have interpreted God’s perfect, divine message correctly? Are you beginning to see why I view Christianity as one huge joke?

Finally, you totally ignore some of the truly amazing, inclusive, tolerant things that Jesus said. I don't recall the actual quote, but there's this great bit that goes like this: "I give you a new Commandment-- to love one another." Forget the one-line arguments against gays and women. Forget the blood and gore of the Old Testament and the misinterpreted allegory of the Revelation. This, truly, is what Christianity's all about. Too many Christians forget that. But so do you.

Sure, you can find a good thought or phrase here and there in the Bible. But that does (not) make Christianity tolerant, kind, loving or true. That does not excuse the Bible’s support of slavery, murder and eternal torture.

I urge you to remove or amend this offensive website. It's detrimental to your own arguments-- you can far more effectively critique the religion by pointing out that it neglects some of its own basic teachings, some of the best. The Christians that offend you are the same ones that offend me, I'd wager: The Bible-thumping Fundies who told you you're going to Hell. But why write off an entire faith and all of its holy texts because of what some people have done with it? One may as well forsake technology because it was used to build the atomic bomb and poison gas and guns. I would implore you to take a slightly more mature, intellectual stance when critiquing an entire religion-- it is not a task to be taken lightly.

If my web site offends you, then don’t visit it. No one forces you to read it. The problem with Christianity is that it is not criticized enough.

Brooks

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 11/19/2000 6:52:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks—

I'll jes' reply to each bit seperately...

I don't have any respect for something which is clearly false and which threatens pe