The one thing that disturbs me is that I think I detect a little bit of subservience to others in your post when it comes to certain fields. Especially when it comes to Josh McDowell. For a little bit of background on why I said what I said about the evidence, go to The Jury Is In. This is a comprehensive set of documents that shows the errors, the fallacies, and the out-right deceptions that McDowell used in his book Evidence That Demands A Verdict. He is definitely not to be considered a luminary among apologists. Especially when there are so many other apologists that actually can formulate the reasons without resorting to the deceptions that McDowell uses.

When you read through this, you will also find why I quoted the Beowulf line. Yes, I should have taken the time to clarify where I was coming from, but this document well spell it out a lot better than I can.

As far as Gish, he is definitely not to be admired. He has been caught in so many falsehoods and cons in the past that I’m simply amazed that others still respect him. Not to mention that both he and Kent Hovind are both under investigation for tax evasion.

The whole assertion of more proof for Christ’s Resurrection seems to come straight from Josh McDowell. His assertion has been refuted over and over again within this arena. If you used this rationality, you could also say that there is more proof for Beowulf killing Grendel then there is proof of Napolean being defeated. It’s an empty assertion that distorts the rules of logic and evidence. In fact, it doesn’t even look at the evidence.

As far as any belief system being categorized as religious, this is dishonest semantics. I’ve already posted the definition of religion and atheism, and shown that the two are not compatible. However, it seems that certain apologists will always try to arbitrarily redefine these to suit their whims.

The posts about evolution I will leave alone until Nick posts his article. (Um, Nick, that was supposed to be a not-so-subtle hint. )

As for some “proof”, I would say this; there are more documents (not including the Bible) that validate Christ’s resurrection, than there are that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo.(hence no circular logic) Thankfully God does not parallel his thinking with that of the feeble human mind. But he does make provisions. Jesus knew that some would doubt with out hard evidence, so he let Thomas stick his hand inside the wound of the spear. But it is audacious to think that we rank so high that this Jesus feller must roam around the earth saying, “Yeah that scar if from back in ‘34 when I had a run in with a Roman guard” So that every one gets a chance at the “proof”. I make no assumption to the credence of this. God also knew that some would not believe so he chose many to “journal” what they saw. While the inspired aspect of this is that they all made it into the Bible, these are eye-witness accounts. At some point, one must accept the experience of others as truth. How do we know Darwin even went to the islands? See my point? There are plenty of dead people we place our faith in.
Check out the almost one billion year difference in the dating systems used in radio/iso metric dating, then compare to a stable dating process like helium leak rates, and c14 presence in diamonds. I am not an expert in the field, but I do find it interesting.
I would tend to side with Nick and others that by all means, ANY belief system in existence, (including atheism) does fall under the parameter of “religion”. There are two great resources for more information on this. One would be the DVD series by D2S, called “GOSPEL Journey”. There is a great exploration between a “preacher”, an atheist, a wiccin, and others. The other would be “More than a carpenter” by Josh McDowell.
I think we run into several issues here. The biggest being semantics. I can find a hundred different definitions of “religion”"evidence”"fact”"theory” and so on. I really don’t think the “observed” theory really backs up evolution since the accepted evolutionary time frame for the world is 4.55 billion years, and our “advances in science” are a mere blink of an eye. Nothing repeatable or observable there. I find that it is our pride and arrogance that usually drive our beliefs rather than any reliance on logic, reason or evidence. I too have sat through many (over 200 credit hours of under grad) classes and seminars. I deduced a lot of people with a lot of time to think and regurgitate others thoughts. And most information in a class is biased with the opinion of the prof giving it. (I know this well, I have two PhD profs in the family) And whether you believe in evolution or creation, we can both agree that life is too short. I have chosen to have a legacy of my life that is based less on ponderment and more on action. Sometimes knowledge gets in the way of truth and awakening(Just ask Gandhi). Take the kids to the park, love on some one, and if you really have an open mind, go observe the natural “proofs” of God’s creation. He will reveal His truth to you, or like Agent Smith says about Morpheus “Maybe we are asking the wrong questions”. With that, I mean no offence by any of this. I simply process thought much different than others. Take what you like, leave the rest.

The first thing you notice when you study the different religions is just how much they have in common. All religions acknowledge that man’s present state is unsatisfactory. All believe that a change of attitude and behaviour is needed if man’s situation is to improve. All teach an ethics that includes love, kindness, patience, generosity and social responsibility and all accept the existence of some form of Absolute.
They use different languages, different names and different symbols to describe and explain these things; and it is only when they narrow- mindedly cling to their one way of seeing things that religious tolerance, pride and self-righteousness arise.

Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian all looking at a cup. The Englishman says, “That is a cup.” The Frenchman answers, “No it’s not. It’s a tasse.” The Chinese comments, “You are both wrong. It’s a pei.” And the Indonesian laughs at the others and says “What a fool you are. It’s a cawan.” The Englishman get a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, “I can prove that it is a cup. My dictionary says so.” “Then your dictionary is wrong,” says the Frenchman “because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse.” The Chinese scoffs at them. “My dictionary is thousands of years older than yours, so my dictionary must be right. And besides, more people speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be pei.” While they are squabbling and arguing with each other, a Buddhist comes up and drinks from the cup. After he has drunk, he says to the others, “Whether you call it a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to be used. Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and refresh your thirst”. This is the Buddhist attitude to other religions.

Let irrationality have its due. Whats good for the loonie is good for the tunes.

When are you going to write another post? The suspense is killing me!