rgmwa

Yes, certainly room for improvement in the design of my eyes, not to mention just about every other bit I can think of. Just adds to the evidence for lack of intelligent design if you ask me. A truly intelligent designer would have come up with a much better example of me than me. rgmwa

Fair enough, but then if God designed and created everything, who do you think designed and created God? rgmwa

Yep, and then the believer and the non-believer are going to look at each other and say "Oh no! Don't tell me you're here too!" rgmwa

Labelling someone a `God-hater' does not indicate a tolerant attitude GG. You may think you are very tolerant, but that's not how you come across. In any case, as has already been pointed out, athiests are not god-haters since they can't hate something they believe doesn't exist. As for warning them of the consequences, save your breath. They don't take much notice of carefully selected quotations from the scriptures either. rgmwa

I think that attitude is quite sinful GG, and worthy of repentence. Remember, tolerance is a virtue. It's like an athiest saying " I equate religious fundamentalists as athiest haters because that how they come across", although I suspect that in your case it may be close to the truth. No offence intended, mind you. rgmwa

Suggest that to a few victims of child abuse committed at the hands of members of the clergy and see if they agree with you. I'm sure even God would think twice about whether it was `so imperative in the scheme of things' that they should be forgiven their sins. rgmwa

GG, I'm impressed by your ability to find a biblical quotation to support every situation and circumstance, but I'm really at a loss to understand the world you live in. For example, Marty mentioned Original Sin, and having been brought up Catholic that's a familiar concept. However, some six decades later the idea that I somehow inevitably share in Adam and Eve's guilt just seems like superstitious nonsense, and I'm sure any God worth his/her salt would see the basic injustice in that notion. So does your black and white view that we can't enter heaven (wherever and whatever that may be) unless we are free of sin, and that we are all sinners and inevitably doomed unless we repent (and what does that mean exactly?). And let's not even start on the question of the origin of our species and all the other life forms on the planet, the planet itself and the universe(s?) in general. Fortunately we are all free to make up our own minds on these subjects, and while you would probably see me as an incorrigible and unrepentant sinner, I'm sorry to say that nothing that you have said makes any sense to me. rgmwa

Those Gideon's bible people sure do get around don't they, GG? rgmwa

Also found at Lake Condah and around Tyrendarra rgmwa

If it had been, it would have been well worth the pain, but sadly no. rgmwa

I hope you are not judged too harshly for your intolerance GG. It's not too late to repent. rgmwa

I can confirm it's a common reaction. rgmwa

Ha, that's nothing! You had it easy. My black robed nun used a brass edged ruler. rgmwa

They will be on the one and only bus, same as everybody else, and going to the same destination, wherever that may be. It's just that some may be more surprised or disappointed than others. rgmwa

Hey Turbo. How many books have you got in your library? It must rival the ancient one at Alexandria. rgmwa

I think you may have missed the point. Historians in 5,000 years time will obviously have access to a lot more information about cars, including photos and detailed drawings etc, than we do about about what the Egyptians were doing 5,000 years ago. 100 years represents only 2% of a 5,000 year period - a very brief moment in which the `sudden' appearance of a new technology in ancient Egypt could easily be misinterpreted as a `legacy' from some mysterious unknown civilisation. Especially if you're looking for `evidence' to support some exotic theory. Historians 5,000 years from now won't make that mistake about cars. rgmwa

To historians in 7014 the short history of the development of the modern automobile would also convince them that it must have been a `legacy', if all they had to work with were the limited records that we have today of the ancient Egyptian civilisation. rgmwa

Bob Hope was relating to his audience how he was once travelling on an aircraft, when the engines started misfiring. There were some anxious looks as the passengers listened to the faltering engines and the plane started to descend. The white-faced passenger beside him started praying. Bob said, " I was feeling very anxious too, and thought I should do something religious .... so I took up a collection!" rgmwa

Well, it's only a theory so I could be wrong. If you don't like that one, I've got plenty more :) rgmwa

Would it? The water would displace the atmosphere which would then have to `spread out' due to the increased circumference of the earth, consequently reducing in height to maintain the same volume, resulting in reduced density and pressure at the water surface. rgmwa

There is not enough water, water vapour and ice on the planet to raise the world's water level to the top of Mt Everest. There is also the small problem of producing rain from clouds that would have to be up around 30,000' to clear the crest. On the other hand, if what is now Mt Everest was at one time not a mountain at all, but part of the sea floor that was later pushed up by plate tectonics, that might explain the shells without the need for Noah's flood. rgmwa

I thought repent meant being sorry, not just acknowledging sin or wrongdoing. Sorry Gnu, but I just find the whole notion of `we are all sinners, repent and be saved, believe and earn the right to be children of God, etc', quite bizarre. To me it suggests a view of the world permeated by fear and uncertainty, and ruled by a god who is not altogether benevolent. Salvation can be yours, but only if you believe you need to be saved and seek forgiveness. I'm intrigued by the way you see things, but it's just not a mindset that I can identify with easily. My failing perhaps. rgmwa

Quite right 80kts. It does ultimately come down to what you believe is more plausible, and we might well all be wrong. The truth may be stranger than we can imagine, but in the meantime all we have are various hotly debated theories and beliefs. You're assuming that God exists, of course. I don't know whether she does or not, and that's the problem (for me). Yes, my conscience tells me when I've done something wrong and if I have to face the music eventually, then so be it. I don't find taking responsiblity for myself in the least abhorrent, and certainly no reason to cling to Darwin's theory. However, it's also not at all obvious to me that there must inevitably be a divine designer to explain everything. To me that's just clutching at another kind of straw, albeit one that offers a lot of psychological comfort in terms of who we are, why we're here and where we're going. That's very reassuring, but of course it might also be quite delusional. However, if it transpires that there really is a God I'm sure she will give me credit for honesty in my ignorance and for being basically a good bloke who's making his way through life as best he can. rgmwa

That's fine 80kts. If you feel that God is a better theory than evolution as a way of explaining living things and the natural world, then feel free to believe that. It doesn't mean that you're right any more than it means Darwin was wrong. rgmwa

Out of curiosity I had a look at that article which talks about the impossibility of a complex organ like a flagellum evolving by evolutionary processes. It concludes by saying: "The example of the bacterial flagellum shows that the existence of complex biological structures that require for their operation the simultaneous functioning of their multiple parts cannot be accounted for by the Darwinian theory of evolution. In fact, according to this theory, such structures should not really exist at all. This means the theory is less than inadequate. Not only does it fail to account for what we see, it implies that what we see should not even exist in the first place. Any theory that is so at odds with observable reality is quite obviously false. So how did the superbly-designed motor of the bacterial flagellum come into existence? The only reasonable inference is that it was fashioned by a transcendent intelligence. The term that is usually used to refer to such intelligence is God." All he is doing is replacing one theory (evolution) with another theory (God) because he hasn't got a clue how else to explain it. I'd hardly call that progress, and it certainly isn't very convincing. rgmwa