-18 votes

Did Darwin Kill God?

I don't want to promote that neocon-running-for-office's thread about evolution anymore.

Here is a wonderful documentary, Did Darwin Kill God?, on how evolution and God can and should coexist.

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 1:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part2:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 3:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6 isn't worth watching.

You cannot argue that evolution occurs. It can be created in a laboratory, in our very own DNA mutation, and through observation of nature. Evolution does not equal atheism and it is a false dichotomy.

This issue is not black and white. It is gray. Both sides on the extreme should watch this series and realize the either-or fallacy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It takes about

two years clear your head from the religious brain washing instilled from a young age.
Some independent self study can abolish these mental disorders.

Mankind has mastered the control of the clan masses throughout history. First through necessity, then brute strength, now the pen.

Religion it's self is a survival tool, to preserve a certain race and or clan. That's why it evolves and sect's come and go into power.

This is so simple the cave man figured it out.

Live you life as you want to be remembered on your last day. live well and good and pass those memories on to your dearest friends and family.

if evolution is true then why

if evolution is true then why doesn't a human being give berth to a monkey or something that matriculates from under a rock every once in a while? Recessive genes are always in the DNA. Also, the 2nd and 3rd law of thermo dynamics tells us that evolution can't or never did happen.

dont some bugs evolve to be

dont some bugs evolve to be immune to certain pesticides? isnt that evolution?

Who knows,

but they stayed bugs. They even stayed the same king of bug.

Uhh, because we didn't come

Uhh, because we didn't come from monkeys, and because the evolution of a human has taken millions of years. It's called branching off. Jeez, you really should stick to discussing silver.

Here are two examples, Sierra

Real-Life 'Werewolves'


People Born With Tails

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn

Lets see... We don't have the

Lets see...

We don't have the same number of Chromosomes

Humans have 46.
Saimiri sciurea (Squirrel monkey) 44.
Logothrix ubericola (Brown woolly monkey) 62,
Ateles paniscus chamek (Black-faces spider monkey) 34,
A. belzebuth (Golden spider monkey) 34,
A. geoffroyi (Hooded spider monkey) 34.
Macaca mullatta (Rhesus monkey) 42,
C. aethiops sabaeus (Green monkey) 60,
C. diana roloway (Diana monkey) 60,
Erythrocebus patas (Patas monkey) 54.

Also, recessive genes don't carry through thousands of generations, DNA doesn't stay the same at all times. Your DNA today is about 0.001% different than it was 5 years ago. The DNA code isn't getting longer (as in storing old information and adding new) but is chaning (old being replaced by new).

Now your Thermodynamic claim.....

It is occasionally claimed that the second law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. This is a common creationist argument against evolution.

In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he stated that, "any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."}}

This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution. Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems.

It is incorrect to apply the closed-system expression of the second law of thermodynamics to any one sub-system connected by mass-energy flows to another (open system); the second law is only true of closed systems. It is easy to decrease entropy with an energy source, such as the sun. For example, a refrigerator separates warm and cold air, but only when it is powered up. Since biology requires an external energy source, there's nothing thermodynamically unusual with it when growing more complex with time. In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as Bénard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink.

Furthermore, a system may decrease its local entropy provided the resulting increase of the entropy to its surrounding is greater than or equal to the local decrease. A good example of this is crystallization. As a liquid cools, crystals begin to form inside it. While these crystals are more ordered than the liquid they originated from, in order for them to form they must release a great deal of heat, known as the latent heat of fusion. This heat flows out of the system and increases the entropy of its surroundings to a greater extent than the decrease of energy that the liquid underwent in the formation of crystals.

or as http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html states.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

"cold" does NOT exist.

what these machines do is simply to transfer heat from one place to another. and that is in fact the definition of refrigeration.
pressure does NOT flow. pressure difference causes flow.
and btw. voltage is electrical pressure.
"a refrigerator seperates the cold air from the hot air"
uh, no.
nature abhors imbalance, it will seek balance at all times and under all conditions.[entropy]
"energy" can be defined as an "imbalance" some we have to create, others we exploit.
hope this helps Patriot!

Hey, you do know your craft

Have you ever slept on the ground in the desert without a ground tarp?Same principle,it will suck it right out of you.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

we finally achieved absolute zero.

and as bose-einstien predicted, the partical turned into a wave..... go figure!


i think sierra was joking


You obviously have studied this a bit lol

This was a very good reply. I did not think of this avenue before.

thanks again,



Very good reply

Thermodynamics is a complex and sophisticated subject. I was going to tackle it but knew I was not prepared.

Free includes debt-free!

You keep looking at the science that suits your needs !

I will look at the Empirical data.
Big Bang would imply the Conservation of angular momentum in a frictionless environment,planets and moons spinning in the same direction,THEY DONT !
Earth is slowing,the magnetic field is weakening(not reversing)ALL CONSISTANT WITH NEW EARTH. The story of creation is spot on when ALL the facts are taken into consideration and not cherry picked by the establishment and their funded hacks in mainstream academia and media.
How about Robert Gentry's book" creations tiny little mystery" showing granite was NEVER a molten mass,because of the radio polonium could not of existed in a high temperature .Look into the salt content of the oceans,erosion factors,population growth,the worlds oldest desert,the oldest reef. World wide flood.
Did you know the largest dinosaurs had nostrils the size of horses?
Did you know the atmosphere was compressed allowing plants and animals and insects to grow to enormous sizes,because of oxygen to surface area?
I have alot more ammo but I am not going to waste it on people who think this is all a coincidence ! Wise up lad,God loves you.
God said in the Bible there is enough proof in this world to see his existence.
Wake up this is the main reason our country no longer recieves the blessing we once did? Read the founding fathers on the subject. Read what creationist science

Empirical data is all well and good...

but its useless if you lack the mental capacity to analyze it.

Which brings me to my next point:
What the hell are you talking about the "Big Bang" for? The big bang has NOTHING to do with the topic of evolution. The correctness of the theory of evolution is contingent upon the correctness neither the hypotheses of abiogenesis, nor the "Big Bang." It stands alone: a natural, observable, and definitively proven process.

You can argue whether or not it accounts for all of the biodiversity in the world. Certainly it can if you believe that the world is over 4 thousand years old (I'm sorry if I have the creation date wrong... not sure which biblical genealogical study you base your beliefs on).

I'm guessing from some of the 'empirical evidence' you cite you're a fan of Kent Hovind. Take what he says with 2 grains of salt. He is gravely mistaken about basic scientific facts-- things that have nothing to do with the gray areas of evolutionary biology I'm talking chemistry and physics stuff. To be blunt, he is intellectually inferior to an artichoke. Actually allow me to take that back, that was rather cruel. He does deserve some credit for his active imagination, he's probably somewhere between broccoli, and a pineapple.

You are wrong here or need to clarify your statment

"He is gravely mistaken about basic scientific facts-- things that have nothing to do with the gray areas of evolutionary biology I'm talking chemistry and physics stuff"

I take martial arts, and two of my instructers are engineers (a lot of black belts are engineers) and they will explain through physics how to better use your body for fighting, and adapt it too fighting. Furthermore, physics tell us where the weak spots are. Google physics and martial arts.

I do not have a degree but what I can tell you about the physics of the human body would take hours to explain (since I tend to explain it in processes not as a static object)

furthermore I have noticed that biologist do not like to talk about how the human body or any other kind of body matches up too physics maybe because they do not want to get fired because someone might think they are an ID believer.

What the hell are you talking about?

I was not alluding to anything about martial arts.

I was LITERALLY talking about basic scientific facts.
The man says things that everyone should know are bullshit via common sense.

For instance:

Claim: “Theoretically, one drop of water will cover the world, if you spread it real thin”

Source: CSE Seminar 6: The Hovind Theory (2003)

Rebuttal: I promise you that the claim was taken, word for word, from his seminar. Are you absolutely sure about that Kent? Here is a quick science lesson for anyone who is unsure as to why this is a load of rubbish.

Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (H20), now the surface area of molecules are all different and are measured in Angstroms. The total surface area of a water molecule is around 10 Angstroms, wheareas the surface of the earth is the equivalent of about 5×1034 Angstroms2. By simply dividing these two numbers by each other you get 5×1033, this is the minumum amount of water molecules required to coat the earth in a mono layer. Now by using the measurement of Moles we can calculate the weight of one water molecule and then multiply it by the total number of molecules needed. This gives us the grand total of 150,000 tonnes of water for a one molecule thick layer of water around the earth!

First I will admit that there

First I will admit that there are flaws in the Big Bang theory in my mind. But creation theory has bigger flaws.

The earth is slowing and the Magnetic field is weakening AND reversing which has happened many times in the past and if you took a basic course in Geology and do some fieldwork you'd see the different magnetic charge in rock setiments. And I find it interesting that you want to blast establishment scientists and their funded hacks in mainstream academia and media, when creationists are funded by creationists to prove a pre conceived notion. Both groups have biases to prove their world view.

You just happen to be completely wrong about the formation of granite, Granate is molten and forms in a very specific way.
I won't doubt Robert Gentry's science because I don't know much about him other than he's a Nuclear Physicist and a Seventh Day Adventists. He has also been critized by many in his field and here is a long article about it.

And yes I did know about the size of dinosaurs and other species if given room and enviroment to flourish, such as there used to be a rhino the size of an elephant.

You concede the fact your theory has flaws,big enough for an ARK

TOO FLOAT THROUGH.The first is you think the polarity will reverse. What proofs show reversal for a fact ?
It is a well known fact the creationist's do not get tenure. Almost all Gov allied colleges tow the EVILutionist line.
Harvard ,Yale ,Princeton all believe in keynes also

Evolution is a tool of the governments to convince you that YOU have no value.
Go ahead trust your loving government and go back to sleep.
you bought the conspiracy theory !

Research "magnetic

Research "magnetic striping"

And as for Creationist scientists not getting tenure ... they are in a minority of the scientific field as well as they are considered Anti-Scientific. I cannot tell you 1 thing a creationist person has put forth that has been accepted as proper science or had nothing to do with proving the bible correct.

They have 1 goal and 1 goal only, prove a book correct meaning their research is from the start extremely biased and most people just aren't interested.

Evolution doesn't make me or most people feel that we have no value. Personally I feel extremly lucky to be alive and want to make the most of it.

And the whole "Hitler" worshipped Darwin thing is just plain stupid. Hitler also enjoyed Mozart doesn't mean Mozart's music is evil. He ate food, doesn't make all food poison.

I can just as easilly say that you've bought into a "Conspiracy Theory" after all it's a matter of perspective, and I just find yours wrong, but I really don't care. Whatever makes you happy. I argue on these threads when people are mis-stating the facts or reframing the arguments in the wrong way. You can say whatever you want about your religion on it's own, don't try to push it as evidence against other theories.

Striping ??? Is that how they explaining it now? lol !!!

Cracks in the crust is why the field increases in areas and decreases in others.
Show me where the polarity changes sine from positive to negative pole ???
No in fact it shows stronger and weaker fields ,never dropping below neutral to negative.
Question ? How did evolution explain the order like the laws of nature and physics? Everything we see goes to chaos,not order!
Where did the rock you came from come from?
What started the big bang?
How were the stars formed with Boyle's laws being present? Not in an ort cloud
A :Not a man on earth has ever seen a star being formed ! FACT
Hitler thought the jews were subhumans "close to pure apes" pg.107 "The Hitler Movement"
"A direct line runs from Darwin,through the father of Eugenics movement-Darwin's cousin,Francis Galton-to extermination camps of nazi Europe."Martin Brooks,'Ripe old age',New Scientist 161 (2171);pg.41,1999

"Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state" Adolf Hitler

By you saying Hitler did not base his idea's of his beliefs from darwin/galton shows how ignorant and childish you are by not looking into it before you shove your foot in your mouth,I accept you apology for your ignorance.I am done scolding a childish adult ! Do your own homework homeboy !

First off I must admit I'm

First off I must admit I'm surpriced that someone is arguing against Geomagnetic polarity and Polar Reversals. Didn't know that it was a contentious issue for creationists. I studied the topic for a few years in a different language but I've been getting my phrasing corrected since your comments wanted to touch on the subject.

Can't help you more than that since I dont have the text books anywhere near me anymore.

The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Physics or for the most part nature, but neither does the bible so I fail to understand why you are even bringing it up as an argument against evolution. Nor does either address Plate Tectonics or string theory. It wasn't made to be an all encompassing treatus. The original Theory of Evolution didn't even address Dominant and Recessive Genes.

I don't know what preceded the bing bang, and neither do you. You just believe that some interstellar being got tired of living in nothingness and created everything in a flash from nothing just to entertain himself I guess.

Stars are formed in nebulae, interstellar clouds of dust and gas (mostly hydrogen). These stellar nurseries are abundant in the arms of spiral galaxies.

In these stellar nurseries, dense parts of these clouds undergo gravitational collapse and compress to form a rotating gas globule, Boyle's law doesn't go against star/planetary formation since gravity fuels the process.

I didn't argue that Hitler didn't read/idolize and base his view from Darwin, I was making the case that just because a deplorable person idolized somebody doesn't mean that that somebodies work was evil. That sort of "Guilt by association" is silly. I don't agree with everything Darwin wrote but that doesn't mean he didn't get Evolution theory sorta right (there have been corrections made to it since it was originally published when new discoveries are made). And nowhere in the theory of evolution was there any mention or inkling of genetic superiority or eugenesist arguments made. I doubt you've read the paper on Evolution though.

Only person who has proven their ignorance is you, since reading/comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. And name calling usually goes with a dim wit.

No silver spoon here

Thank the lord I care about Him and his people not sentence structure !
No need to continue this , you got me ,you win ,darwin is a genius and had it right for the most part ,It is God who is the liar !
wow, now I am going to become a dirt worshipping heathen like you !what was I thinking???
Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
I will pray for you friend,your problem is not with me but with God and his word ! You have a lack of faith sir. I do agree with the evolutionist on one point though.
We all came from an inadament object and dust we will return ,make it worth it you get one dash between two dates, that is it make sure you are right. Do you know everything ? What about half of everything? Is it possible he exists outside of your vast knowledge?It took me 30+ years to find the Lord,because I needed to know! Knock and you shall enter.

Again, gawd did not write the

Again, gawd did not write the book, men did. And they wrote about Jesus decades after he supposedly lived. None of them met the man. Do a little research on the bible and how it contradicts itself and you might learn a thing or two. Or learn the history of it. And beware of the flying spaghetti monster while you do, he doesn't like false idols.

God was the first author of the Bible Gen 1;1-2;4,then adam

your fist error #1 There were 10 authors in Genesis.Then Moses
The whole Bible is a first hand eye witness account of actual events,divinely inspired ,inerrant WORD of God.
Please dont believe me.This is common knowledge well known to people with ears to hear and eyes to see.
Genesis 1;1"In the beginning God created Heaven and the earth"(time,matter,space) to
Genesis 2;4 4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
,Then the next Author (Adam) starts were God leaves off @ Gen 2;5 to 4;26
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Each Author signs off ,moses wrote from Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy
He only bound the book of Genesis.
error #2 Exodus 31;18And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
You may know evilution ,but have not a clue about the bible,you might be smart but do you have ears to hear and eyes to see what is right in front of you??
Logic by who's definition? who are you to say what is logic?
Man I did not know this site was full of dirt worshipping heathens? I think that is illogical ! As for Jesus ,when God himself has come is there a need to write it down asap?Do you know who nero was IN 70AD??? Were christians being feed to the lions? did they need to write down Jesus was their God while being eaten, because Jesus was there God?Where the heck do you get your logic from? THEY WERE BEING EATEN ALIVE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE,THEY BELIEVED,I am SORRY U R A COWARD and are scared to look into the truth .The Revealtion of st.jon (really Jesus the Christ's vision) was in about 90 AD on the isle of patmos. Christians are the most persecuted set of people ever in history ,roman empire has killed over 200 million people,most were real christians. This country was founded by King James 1606 charter of virginia for christianity because he knew the truth. I dont understand how a man/women of "logic" does not know the first thing about history or the bible,maybe you should change your name to ignorant fool? . Read the Bible,then come talk to me thou fool.I STUDY LAW ,HISTORY, SCIENCE AND WELCOME DEBATE ON THE FACTS. YOU HAVE BEEN SPREADING YOUR TAINT FOR A WHILE NOW.Ron Paul is a Bible believing Christian.
Psalms 92;6 A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this.

You're insane to think that I

You're insane to think that I know nothing of the bible. I have studied it. I have to to be able to point out how ridiculous it is. Xtians persecuted? They're responsible for the murders of millions! Don't even try to pull that crap. And you want to now make personal attacks on my character? Calling me a coward? Very xtian of you. Grow up.
And you want to call me a fool? Seriously?
(Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
I might as well throw in some hypocrisy while I'm at it.
# (Psalm 14:1) - "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good"
# (Matthew 23:17) - "You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?"
Don't call a man a fool, oh wait, well maybe. Not sure.
You want to quote scripture? Here are a few verses.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.
(Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

You want to talk about how good that book is? I'll tell you where you can put that evil book.
Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged!
What was that about checkmate? Clown

what is funny is this.. The

what is funny is this.. The Law was written to show that NO MAN can keep it. This is what you don't understand.

Hmm, now that would seem a

Hmm, now that would seem a bit malevolent to me. I thought your gawd didn't do that. Intentionally creating laws that you know people cannot abide by? Hey, I see you have a quote there by Mark Twain. Did you know that he too was an Atheist? Wait, a Jefferson quote as well? You do know he wrote his own version of the bible because he too saw how silly the supernatural aspects were.


Judge by the same standard you want to be judged by .Why have a standard then?
I Hate evil , You deny God's word ?
You are quoting ten different bibles,I have one ! MAJORITY TEXTS ONLY ,or so scolars I have met think,when you compare the fakes to the real thing there is no question.
You are quite pathetic with the whole discredit God's word ,then use it to prove your point? very confusing stances????
So the catholic chuch did not burn millions of true christians at the stake????
I dont have a reason to be mad? You blasphemy Lord God ! that is a good reason.
I dont hate you just the sin of your ignorance.
Keep quoting necromancy texts. Majority text is the WORD
PS READ THE NEW TESTAMENT,Jesus changes things a little,such an astute scholar as yourself should know these things.
I dont think you are that smart from your posts ,on that premise I assume you dont know everything? or do you? maybe he exist outside of your feeble mind?