[Noctis]

Originally Posted by onion

The one billionth of everything is just a statistic. It is not proven. And none the less only serves as an example. I am also lead to believe it would be far less of a number of what we actually know, so what you have basically concluded is that it is even more irrational to conclude that there is no God.

I like how you shoved that conclusion down my throat.
I can understand if you arrive at random conclusions through no chain of logical thought, but please don't insult me by implying that I ever suggested it, you decided that on your own.
Unless concluding that there IS a God imparts us with the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999% knowledge of "everything", it won't have any effect whatsoever on one's decision to believe in God or not.

Satan is the one who caused the "bad" and is a result of sin. If you read through Genesis, God saw that everything was good. Satan spawned evil from His heart and desired to build a throne above God, and thus sin was started. But either way this is another discussion that is debatable, and we are talking about science. If you read through the book of Job, God allows for bad things to happen in order that people can be made right with God. He uses trials to bring people to Salvation. Don't believe this? It's even evident just by examination. During natural disasters, when 9/11 happened, when hurricane Katrina happened, the aspects you did not see on the news was how many people drastically turned to the Churches, and to God. The Bible says that there will be more rejoicing for 1 person who repents than 99 people who have already repented. God will cause disasters even if it is to save 1 person. Again if you argue about God being the cause of evil and sin read: Genesis 3, Job 1, Ezekiel 28, Romans 8:20-22, James 1:13-17 and allows these things because of Romans 8:28.

Satan is a pathetic attempt by the religious to free themselves from taking responsibility for their own faults by simply saying that "Satan did it", "Satan made me do it", or "Satan tricked me into doing it". I fail to see how free will is supposed to exist if one can be so easily mislead. It also sounds like you're suggesting that humanity isn't capable of doing either good or evil on their own, instead it's either God or Satan that decides whether they do good or evil. If this is the case, I don't believe that anybody can be held responsible for good or evil.

The ends justifies the means? The lesser of two evils? Sacrifice one to save many? If this is the case, using that very same logic, I can end all evil on earth by completely and utterly wiping out all of humanity, and it would be justified. There will be no future atrocities, no further evils, no World War III.

If you would have read my post above, you would see that just because someone believes in God does not mean they are saved. Salvation comes through repentance, and Faith. In James 2:19 it says that even the devils believe, but we all know devils are not in Heaven, God cast them out.

I suppose this is the part where you tell me that the wicked will only be saved if they "truly regret" their actions?
If this is the case, I believe that only a very small number of the 76% of Christians in America will ever get to Heaven.

And what of the deluded? I'm quite certain that the Crusaders did believe, they did have great faith, and they will repent for any sins they committed. People will kill in God's name, and I see no reason why they won't get in Heaven, according to the vibe I'm getting from you anyways.

Sin is sin in God's eyes, there is no small nor large sin. Stealing as equally as much of a sin as murder. It does not matter if one man lies and the other kills, both are sinners in God's eyes.

To repent, they must believe in Jesus, they must put their faith in him that they shall be saved.

Thus following that logic, those who kill, rape, and torture can get in Heaven so long as they have genuine belief and genuine faith. Devils may believe in God, but do they have faith in him, do they believe that they can be saved?

I do not see what you are trying to prove through Deutoronomy, but I will respond to this in 1 second. Let me point out that my statement was as follows: "The translations have not changed any core meaning of the Bible, if you believe this provide me a verse and I will disprove it. Again watch the video." So you're argument with Deut. proves no argument against this. The Bible, though has many translations, has not changed the context of the core meaning of the Bible. Again, as an example with the world being flat. Science believed the world was flat, had they read the Bible they would have found out the earth is round, and upon discoveries they changed to believing that the earth was round and not flat. Science also used to believe that if you were sick you have bad blood, so they would cut people to make them bleed out their "bad blood" which eventually lead to deaths. If they would have believed Leviticus 17:11 that says that a creatures life is in their blood, maybe that would have prevented this belief in science, but none the less they found out blood is good upon discoveries so they have changed their general concepts and belief throughout time, and the Bible has not.

I would like you to quote an actual source(not a religious fanatic's site or Mr. Hovind's twisted version of the "truth") for the claim that science itself was responsible for the "bad blood" practice.

As for the comment about the Bible saying the earth is round, I'd like to direct your attention here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PS...Schneider.html

Not a 2 hour long video, but instead several pages of text. I believe it more than sufficiently refuted the claim that the Bible talks about a spherical Earth, as "a circle is no more a sphere in scripture than it is in geometry".

Another prime example of a petty human "interpreting" the Bible in whichever way he so pleases, made all the more pathetic by the failed attempt to make it seem "ahead" of science.

I am assuming you are trying to prove that God is evil in this passage. Perhaps you did not read the rest of this story in Deutoronomy these people God is talking about were enemies of Israel and they made false idols instead of worshipping God. Even in the first verse it say's to offer them peace, but they didn't... they chose war. Labor and slavery back in these times was different then when Jesus came into existence and far different from slavery as we have seen it progress. Slaves in these times were actually taken care of. They were more like employees, then slaves, and they were payed. But God was furious with them because they had made false idols. Which in Matthew 22:36-48 we see that God says the most important commandment is to love God, it doesn't say love things of this world or false idols, but to love God. And in Leviticus 19:4, Exodus 20:23, Exodus 34:17, Leviticus 26:1, Psalms 96:5, Psalms 115:4, etc God warns everyone about having idols and false gods. These people were in direct violation with God's number 1 law. If God's wrath is so divine and Hell is separation from God, and people who do not obey God's commands are going to hell, which is far worse than anyone can imagine... well then, I think this picture is just a small glimpse of God's anger, because of direct disobedience to Him. But luckily He sent His son so that we can escape His eternal wrath.

In a parallel with the Sabbatical Year system, the Covenant Code institutes automatic manumission of male Israelite slaves, after they have worked for six years[51]; this implicitly excludes non-Israelite slaves, and explicitly excludes female Israelite slaves from such automatic 7th-year manumission[52]. However, the later[53][54][55][56][57] Deuteronomic Code directly contradicts[58][59] elements of this instruction, extending automatic 7th year manumission to both sexes[60]. But this only applies to people who have sold themselves into slavery (i.e. indentured servants).

Although the Holiness Code instructs that during the Sabbatical Year, slaves and their masters should eat food which the land yields, without being farmed, it does not explicitly forbid the slaves from the farming itself, despite restricting their masters from doing so, and neither does it grant slaves any other additional rest from work during these years.[101]

Indeed, unlike the other law codes, the Holiness Code does not mention explicit occasions of respite from toil, instead simply giving the vague instruction that Israelite slaves should not to be compelled to work with rigour;[102][103] Maimonides argues that this was to be interpreted as forbidding open-ended work (such as keep doing that until I come back), and that disciplinary action was not to include instructing the slave to perform otherwise pointless work.[104][105]
A special case is that of the debtor who sells himself as a slave to his creditor; the Holiness Code instructs that in this situation, the debtor must not be made to do the work of slaves, but must instead be treated the same as a hired servant.[106] In Jewish tradition, this was taken to mean that the debtor should not be instructed to do humiliating work - which only slaves would do - and that the debtor should be asked to perform the craft(s) which they usually did before they had been enslaved, if it is realistic to do so.[107][108]

Now in correlation to your responses on the video:

You're sitting here telling me that I took nothing away from this video, yet one of your statements, is incorrect.

You said that he stated that creationism was allowed to be taught in public schools. Apparently you did not listen very well yourself, because he was talking PRIOR to 1963, when evolution first started being government funded, and creationism was erased from text books.

Apparently you didn't listen at all.
He constantly used present-tense terms such as:
"No, you don't have to teach this evolution theory." (correct past tense term = "didn't have to")
"Teachers can teach Creation theory in public schools if they want."(correct past tense terms = "used to be able to" and "if they wanted to")

Also, he quoted this, "no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before and it can be taught now". The date was listed as July 19, 1987.

Perhaps in addition to "practice what you preach" you should also KNOW what you preach.

I think something that is very important to take out; if nothing else from this video is the fact of what science is.

Science is knowledge that is acquired through observation and studies.

If you truthfully believe the big bang to be a fact, that is illegitament because no body was there to observe it actually happen.

If you continue watching the video, however, he provides examples of why the earth cannot possibly be millions of years old, and uses science to prove so.

I will draft up information, I need to get going for now though.

You obviously never took science class nor performed any experiments.

Science does indeed include observation, but did you forget that you can observe things other than the actual event itself?

I ask you this:
You find a large blackened spot on the ground. Rock and dirt are thrown out in an expanding pattern from one focal point in the middle of the blackened ground. There is considerable structural damage all around that is consistent with a large amount of concussive force and heat. Would it be logical for you to conclude that an explosion occurred, even though nobody witnessed it?

If Mr. Hovind actually "proved" that the earth isn't millions of years old using the scientific method, the entire scientific community would be in an uproar, and I'd be watching this guy on the news.

Instead when I wake up tomorrow morning, I'll be spending my time observing how Wikipedia has quite literally dissected Kent Hovind and all his "claims" and "challenges":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind

I would suggest that everyone do the same.