Almost Smart  

Go Back   Almost Smart > The Lounge > Debate & Politics

Debate & Politics Fight! Fight! Fight! Keep your arguments clean, and be constructive about getting your point across.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-02-2005   #1
hai Jay
Time for breakfast!!!
 
hai Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,098
Rep Power: 105
hai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond repute
intelligent design

have any of you guys heard of this?

i recently got into a debate with a guy on livejournal over whether there was a difference between the concept of the bible's account of creation and the concept of intelligent design.

here is our debate: http://www.livejournal.com/community...nce/12890.html

the guy highly annoyed me.

so, i'm not sure if this goes in debate, blog, general, etc. so here it is.

have any of you guys heard of intelligent design, and what do you think of it?
__________________
Dare to dream.
hai Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #2
psychoDiablo
Thx for the memories
 
psychoDiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 15,971
Rep Power: 199
psychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to psychoDiablo Send a message via Yahoo to psychoDiablo
Re: intelligent design

Quote:
Originally Said by jackthepanda
have any of you guys heard of this?

i recently got into a debate with a guy on livejournal over whether there was a difference between the concept of the bible's account of creation and the concept of intelligent design.

here is our debate: http://www.livejournal.com/community...nce/12890.html

the guy highly annoyed me.

so, i'm not sure if this goes in debate, blog, general, etc. so here it is.

have any of you guys heard of intelligent design, and what do you think of it?
well right her eyour just being igonorant to the fact that he could be right:"people that belief in ufos/aliens do not neccessarily think that they are our creators...actually i don't know many that do. also, you failed to respond to the fact that UFOs are objects, not poeple, and of course they exist, because they are any object flying around that isn't identified. alien space ships are different."

"so are there groups of worship set up for people that believe in ufos?" probably ,...just look that shit up on the net.....

"do they worship one particular person or set of people that have a name? do they practice the followings of these people? do they hold certain beliefs for these people other than the fact that they exist? and i say they in reference to aliens, not the UFOs you keep referring to which are nothing but mere flying THINGS." ---- so how technical do you want to get? you know what he was saying...

"do they have a purpose for following the UFOs?" does who have a purpose? Humans...you better bet they do.. those mother fuckers.

Quote:
Originally Said by by that guys Lars
I already did prove it. Perhaps its your faith that allows you to ignore my evidence and just tell me I'm wrong.
i never thought of it, but you know...

Quote:
Originally Said by jsj4degrees
supernatural being is not the same thing as god. god refers to religion, the supernatural does not always.
to be honest, i dont know about that...--- heh...

it is compatible with a belief in God

Quote:
Originally Said by 4dgrees
UFOs can not be a religion because their followers do not follow a specific doctrine, it's not an institutionalized system centered in worship, they don't practice teachings established by said UFOs, not to mention that UFOs are unidentified flying objects...which are inanimate objects, not people or any kind of supreme being.
lmao. you've got to be kidding me...hahahahaha. come on now... u know what the fuck a UFO is when someone says, "Is that aUFO!?" is that an alien! an unidentified flying object?! AN ALIEN!!! wtf?

Quote:
Originally Said by 4Degrees
god is supernatural, but not all supernatural beings are gods. ex of supernatural other than god: ghosts.
now that's just lame. ur going to far. farther than you should have gone. Ghosts. Now, if you believe in ghosts, surely you must think they're is a God. You can't tell me ghosts exist and God's dont. And how do you know this ghost isn't a God? Maybe he was still here , AND, that's how he's still here??!?





all in all, i think i got nowhere and learned nothing.

than what i already know of course......
__________________
I wouldn't say I'm psycho only because I'm able to handle it.
Now learn patience

To chill is to be chillin.
Chillin is cooperating with your surroundings, unknowing'st of what everything is capable of; and all the while, as it happens and after, to accept without any thought of good or bad, but mainly, just enjoying rather deeply, the moment you had to sit and think. (Not thinking.)

|-Mr.MCR-|

Will you write
Will you love
Will you enjoy
Life when I am gone?
You will.
by Angelina

"I have lived life as horrible as it was, and as beautiful as it has become."
psychoDiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #3
hai Jay
Time for breakfast!!!
 
hai Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,098
Rep Power: 105
hai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

you dumbass, that has nothing to do with the debate...just like i told him.

i asked about intelligent design.
__________________
Dare to dream.
hai Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #4
Jenn and tonic
"maaaaagic!"
 
Jenn and tonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 33
Posts: 5,965
Rep Power: 119
Jenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Jenn and tonic
Re: intelligent design

So because I am lazy and don't feel like searching around, what exactly is intelligent design?

(oh, and I love the avatar. The Breakfast Club kicks ass.)
__________________
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. – Thomas Jefferson
Jenn and tonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #5
hai Jay
Time for breakfast!!!
 
hai Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,098
Rep Power: 105
hai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

"Intelligent design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments that claim empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. ID adherents believe that there exist instances of "irreducible complexity": fundamental biological forms that cannot have evolved from simpler forms. Therefore, ID adherents argue that these building blocks of life were deliberately designed by some intelligent entity.

The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers: the Center for Science and Culture, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington. Claimed by its proponents to expose the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Scientific naturalism, the ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution (athough ID in and of itself does not oppose evolution), and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside the standard scientific models in public school curricula."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design


it's a pseudoscience: A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation
__________________
Dare to dream.
hai Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016   #6
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

well there is evidence for Intelligent Design...

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016...t-interaction/

Love this great list from Frank Turek's book, Stealing from God:

"The law of causality is not certain . . . except for theories that seem to affirm atheism.

Only material things exist . . . except for the laws of logic and my immaterial mind that I use to come to that conclusion.

Everything has a physical cause . . . except my own thoughts and theories about atheism.

God can’t be eternal everything needs a cause . . . except the universe it can be eternal.

We don’t believe in anything we can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or taste . . . except the multiverse, which we can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or taste.

Intentionality doesn’t exist . . . except when I intentionally make a case for atheism.

Nature is not goal-directed . . . except when I’m doing science and depend on the laws of nature to be consistently goal-directed.

No one has free will . . . except me when I freely arrive at atheistic conclusions.

Consciousness is an illusion . . . except the consciousness I need to write books that say consciousness is an illusion.

There is no objective morality . . . except for all of the moral absolutes I advocate (and don’t forget that it’s objectively immoral for you to impose your moral absolutes on me!).

There is no evil . . . except when I try to use evil to disprove God.

God is evil . . . oops, I forgot, there is no evil!

God has no right to kill children . . . but I do. http://www.herestheblood.com/

Religion poisons everything . . . except that atheistic religion I forgot to mention that has murdered millions.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publicc...less-goodness/

https://wellspentjourney.wordpress.c.../superstition/

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe..._religion.html


All truth comes from science . . . except that truth and all the other nonscientific truths I need to do science.

Intelligent design is not science . . . except when I use it in archaeology, cryptology, biomimetics, and police work, or when I use it to suggest that an alien brought life here.

When you stop at a cause, you stop science . . . except when you stop at evolution.

The simple can’t give rise to the complex . . . except when it’s evolution.

There is no evidence for God . . . except all that evidence you keep bringing up that I’ve ruled inadmissible.

Philosophy isn’t important to science . . . except the philosophy I’m using to rig science to always provide atheistic answers.

Unlike religion, science is objective and open to new ideas . . . except when I use materialistic ideology to harass, demean, and fire you for proposing new ideas." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 07-13-2016 at 03:36 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016   #7
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Though I realize that Wikipedia is run by a leftist college professor and has always leaned that way, I didn't realize until recently how aggressively anti-Intelligent Design/pro-evolution it is. If you wiki "Discovery Institute" (the organization that published the pdf of over 600 signatures from scientific professionals rejecting Darwinianism), it labels it as a "Christian think-tank," and then flat out calls Intelligent Design "pseudo-science."
I then proceeded to check out Wikipedia on Irreducible Complexity and of course right at the top, it admits its focus is on addressing Intelligent Design proponents. The objections to Irreducible Complexity are listed under the title "Response of the Scientific Community," which implies that persons who believe in Intelligent Design are not part of that community. (They really have a whole deceptive marketing strategy figured out, don't they?)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05...lli003594.html

This constant argument of bias as a result of funding or what type of worldview proponent it attracts can be argued by both sides on just about all of these issues. We can disagree with the political or religious leanings of the source, but we still have to address the content and data they provide, first and foremost.

It's simple. If people choose not to see the complex design in creation that could not have been birthed from chaos, they really have no concept of reality. Moreover, any scientist that can not recognize the obvious, can not be a legitimate scientist.

The Darwinian mechanism has a demonstrated ability to be an awesome force in survival of the fittest. But the evidence for universal common descent assumes common ancestry in order to prove common ancestry! Darwinists are fond of pointing all these phylogenetic analyses as "proof" of common descent, while completely ignoring the fact that the entire exercise assumes it. I like to ask how the results of phylogenetic analysis would be any different if biological systems were the result of common design? Most of the responses boil down to some form of a "God wouldn't have done it that way" claim. Besides the obvious fact that my question didn't mention God, it is curious that somehow all these Darwinists (the vast majority of whom are also atheists) seem to know exactly what God would or would not do. So, I usually follow with "what scientific research study have you conducted to determine what God would or would not do?" The point is, the whole common descent argument turns on two presuppositions, both of which call the entire enterprise into serious question: one is the assumption of common ancestry to prove common ancestry, which is begging the questions; the other is the hidden assumption of what God would or wouldn't do. Neither provides a good foundation for common ancestry.
So there is still a need for scientific evidence in universal common descent before we should accept such an extraordinary claim.

Where it has not shown itself to be adequate is in the arrival of the fittest.

This doesn't mean universal common ancestry is necessarily false, but it does give us reason to be skeptical.

They have a story without an adequate mechanism. therefore it's a pseudoscience: A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 07-13-2016 at 04:28 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016   #8
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

600 signatures of scientific professionals rejecting Darwinism? That's a big number until you see the list of scientists who are named Steve who agree with the statement:
Quote:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
The Steves currently stand at 1389.

Evolution does not address abiogenesis, but I'll address your concerns about common ancestry and descent. If there were a creator and he or she were intelligent, they would have used a better design than we currently have. For example, she figured out a way to make eyes without blind spots in cephalopods, and eyes with two different focus spots for many species of raptors, but left humans (made "special") with shitty eyes with poor focus and a blind spot. Also, he or she created telomeres that are copied imperfectly and lead to cancer, aging, and death. Also, he or she created the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (which goes from the brain to the larynx) had it loop around the heart of fish (which is fine for fish because they lack necks and the path is there is fairy straightforward), but also kept that same arrangement for humans (who have necks) and giraffes (who have long necks), necessitating the creation of a nerve that goes for meters away from its destination to loop around the heart, presumably to give it more opportunities to become damaged (especially in horses). She decided that, instead of using the pattern she had already created for opposable thumbs in apes, she would create a thumb out of a wrist bone in pandas instead. addition, he or she used the basic quadrupedal body common to mammals to create the "special" humans, which are bipedal, consequently damning them to spinal problems due to compression of the spine. She also made sure that humans have some of the genes that other animals use to lay eggs, just in case. She also put pelvises into whales despite them having no function in the marine species, using a design for a land-dwelling animal without bothering to remove the extraneous organs that could confuse future humans into thinking they were descended from land-dwelling species rather than being created perfectly for their lives in the ocean. Why would an intelligent god keep using the same, broken common design to create a planet's worth of life that all fits exactly into phylogenetic trees as we would expect from a common ancestor? To trick us?

Even if it was proven scientifically that all creatures did not come from a common ancestor and were designed "intelligently", why would you assume that the god who did so was the god of Abraham? Why not the Norse gods? Why not the Greek gods? Why not the Egyptian gods? All other religions also have creation myths, and disproving the entirety of the basis of modern biology would not prove the Judeo-Christian myth as correct: it is a false dichotomy. What evidence (besides the Bible) do you have that the Judeo-Christian creation myth is the correct one?

You do not understand what evolution is or how it works. You do not understand biology. You are arguing against claims that scientists don't even make (God is evil? Really?). Do you think you have unraveled a vast, centuries-long conspiracy of scientists trying to lead Christians astray with our logic and testable hypotheses? That you understand science and logic better than the people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge from the natural world? 99.9% of scientists accept evolution as true. I'm glad that you don't get to decide who is a legitimate scientist and who is not.

Edit: If you're interested in understanding what evolution actually is rather than the strawman evangelicals have made it out to be, I recommend:
Why Evolution is True
The Greatest Show on Earth
or literally any biology textbook not published by a religious publisher
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store


Last edited by foxyphoenix; 07-13-2016 at 05:00 PM.
foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016   #9
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

And if God created the world and everything in it, God would have to be more powerful, intelligent, and creative than human beings. So who are we to question how He did it? A mere observer and discovered of the natural world is always at a disadvantage when it comes to whether or not the features they observe are optimal. And sometimes some of the features that we once thought were bad designs, turn out to be good ones. And what is the naturalist to say then? This is a naturalistic argument of the science of the gaps. And yes, these gaps are sometimes closed. Only the creator of the system truly knows what is an "optimal" design and what is not, not only because we, mere creatures, do not have omniscient understanding of all the aspects of how the design serves the specific creatures in which they are found, but also how that design fits into the greater picture of all creation. Another point is that perhaps some designs were intended to be sub-optimal. The bottom line is that we don't know. This is another one of those 'why would God do such and such' questions that cannot be answered by theists or atheists.

But if we were to bring this range of knowledge down to a practical level for the purpose of drawing an imperfect analogy, I will say think about someone who designs software, they're not really mindful of how a layman will see his or her code, whether he or she will find its utility helpful, or whether or not he or she will think it to be "sub-optimal." They design the software and code it to fulfill their ends and their purposes. The layman may see the result and find it unimpressive. It matters very little to the software designer on the granular level of bits and bytes.

Suggesting that the human retina is sloppily designed is ludicrous. Despite your sentiments towards how it "ought" to have been designed, none of it technically even comes close in creating a visual processing system remotely close to the human retina's visual fidelity and precision. It's also been shown that, biologically, the inverted construction of the retina is optimal to enhance functionality and is a highly effective method to accurately transmit enormous amounts of data along the optic nerve. http://www.icr.org/article/backwards...e-poor-design/

You're also assuming lots of things by suggesting that the designer ought to have made biological systems "better," which exerts a truckload of hubris. Just because certain species might've lived longer, avoid types physical illnesses, or lived in a state of perpetual happiness and healthiness, has nothing to do with what GOD believes God ought to have done.

It seems to me that to determine if a design is good/bad or could be better, you would have to have some insight into the designer's purpose. Everything is a trade off, your complaint seems to boil down to, 'I wouldn't have done it that way.' Which is one of the oldest in the book. As to the specifics you mention, there's a pretty long history of people saying 'this doesn't make sense' only for later knowledge to illuminate a reason for it. A measure of humility does everyone, scientist or not, a lot of good.

Also, if one believes that the God of the Bible was the one who did it - a core element of the creation story is that man sinned and as a result, decay came into the world. So perhaps when God first made everything, it was perfect. After all, he called it "good."

1) Abiogensis is one of the BIG QUESTIONS that secular science has yet to answer.

2) Sitting in GOD's lap to try and slap GOD in the face: It is logically impossible for you say or claim that we knew that an all knowing all powerful entity would necessarily choose not to use the method actually used (DNA for example) to actualize His plans. That would suppose that the person that objects is somehow in the possession of knowledge of what the omnipotent, omniscient entity should exactly know and so claim that such an entity would not make the actual state of affairs (naturally implying that he, the atheist knew better). In other words one should be omniscient and omnipotent to know what an omniscient person knows or plans and takes into consideration when planning and creating/actualizing.

You posit a list of "poor design choices" in various species which are (in your opinion) not optimal. Yet - in spite of these designs (or possibly because of them...) we have a thriving biosphere that secular science has yet to duplicate by designing even a single organism. If there is a master designer behind the universe, pretending that our finite minds are capable of an intelligent critique of structures that we have only barely begun to understand is the height of hubris. Simply put - with regard to poor design choices: "Says you..."

3) Repeated design elements and structures appearing in different species: You claim this indicates random change/pure evolution. I can tell you that reusing successful components is generally agreed to be a "best practice" in software design. Common sense tells us that reusing successful design elements is not only logical - it is efficient.

4) You're correct that proving or disproving evolution (meaning: "things change over time") in the strictest sense of the word does nothing for the case for or against God. This is why you dodged abiogenesis - God's fingerprints are all over the start of things; He may have used more traditional evolutionary means to create the diversity we see, but how it all started is where the heart of the problem lies. Common sense (and a bit of life experience) show that in every other area we can observe, increasing entropy grinds down the complex into the simple. Yet in this one area - biology - we are asked to believe that as entropy increases, somehow life sprang from non-life and it has been growing more and more complex and sophisticated with each passing generation, culminating in our own self-aware persons (another thing which secular science has no answer for: the origin and meaning of consciousness). Hmm -- isn't that a bit of special pleading? Only biology runs counter to the arrow of time (entropy)? Could it be that an outside agency has and is guiding the development of life itself? How else can we explain the discrepancy? What happens when you randomly change the "DNA" (software code) of a complex computer system - does it generally improve things or do you get the "blue screen of death?" Yet we are asked to believe that the wonder of actual DNA is purely accidental. The discoverers of DNA (Watson and Crick - both atheists) knew from the moment of their discovery that this code was too complex to have arisen by accident. Their official explanation was that DNA arrived on Earth from an extraterrestial orgin. Seriously - they thought we are alien transplants. Now which option is more likely? Can you presuppose X to create X? How so?

5) As you ask me to avoid religious publishers, you throw a the leading pastor of atheism and secular humanism Richard Dawkins book at me? Now this is funny, because didn't you just finish raving about how many bad designs there are in nature, and then you link me to a book by a biologist who never should have left the lab that celebrates the beauty of evolution?

https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt...=darwins+doubt

What works have you read against evolution?

Oh God, you really did get his argument from Coyne. Coyne is a mythicist who deletes challenges to himself on his blog. Again, no religious publishers, right?

From Biologos's critique of Jerry Coyne, who raised some of the same objections:

"Two brief comments: First, although Coyne doesn’t own up to it, all of his comments about a designer are theological rather than scientific. After all comments about what a good or bad designing god would do are statements about the character, wisdom and plans of such a god. Such comments don’t tell us anything about the existence of such a designer. If anything, they only tell us about how Coyne appraises the work of such a designing god.

Second, Coyne’s recurring fascination with designers and “bad design” illustrates how easily the metaphor of God as a designer distorts our thinking about God and His relationship to creation. The image of God as an engineer or designer is a creation of 18th century deism not a biblical image. Theologians and historians have discussed how disastrous the design metaphor has been for biblical Christianity." http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/a-...nerally-part-1

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"You are arguing against claims that scientists don't even make (God is evil? Really?)"
Scientists don't make claims like this. And if they do, they've invoking a moral standard -- they are claiming that something is objectively wrong and that things shouldn't be this way. But science itself doesn't make claims about how things ought to be, but how things are.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"That you understand science and logic better than the people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge from the natural world? 99.9% of scientists accept evolution as true. I'm glad that you don't get to decide who is a legitimate scientist and who is not."
All of this commits a huge appeal to authority fallacy. Just because 99.9% "scientists" are on board with "evolution" -- still hasn't given us a proper/adequate and functional definition for evolution we can both comprehend and follow -- doesn't mean it's right. Heck, 99.9% scientists in the world (whatever # that amounts to be) aren't even interested in the biological origins of organic species on Earth; they really don't care! There are professors who had PhDs in biology, psychology, and neuroscience, and they literally didn't know the distinction between micro and macroevolution, let alone the insuffiencies in paleontological evidence.

And remember Galileo's championing the back-then-controversial, but now uncontested heliocentrism and Copernicanism? Virtually 100% of people back in the day believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Percentage and unanimity of belief in an idea does nothing to establish the veridicality of the scientific claim. 99% of the population could believe the moon is made out of cheese; that does nothing to the establish that the moon is therefore actually made out of cheese.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 07-13-2016 at 07:05 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016   #10
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Please prevent one testable piece of evidence that your specific god exists and created the universe.
There is none. There is no god: no Judeo-Christian god, no Norse god, no Hindu god, none. No one is watching over you. No one cares.

Your main argument is completely untestable and illogical: that your god is so great, intelligent, and creative that literally anything can be explained by it. Evidence that points directly to a different explanation is still evidence of your creative god. Your conclusion relies upon itself.

The argument from ignorance is absurd. Just because science has not fully explained abiogenesis is not evidence for the Judeo-Chritisan god and a literal interpretation of Genesis, nor is it evidence of intelligent design: a lack of evidence for one view is not proof of the correctness of another view. Also, abiogenesis and evolution are not intrinsically dependent: disproving abiogenesis would not disprove evolution by common descent.

The argument from entropy is laughable. Entropy only increases within a closed system. The Earth is an open system: the sun provides more than enough energy to drive evolution and increasing complexity.

I posted about the Steves and 99.9% of biologists to counter your argument from authority regarding the 600 "scientific professionals"s that the DI uses to claim that there is dissent about the truth of evolution in the scientific community. There is not.

Read just one book written from a pro-evolution standpoint, and you will find your arguments addressed.

I've read the Bible (many times), Of Pandas and People, The Language of God, Darwin's Doubt, Darwin on Trial, What Darwin Didn't Know, The Case for a Creator, and more. I even took a religious studies intelligent design course in college alongside my evolutionary biology ones. Because I didn't come into those experiences with the conclusion that a personal, benevolent god exists, the arguments did not hold weight. Their arguments are also reliant on their own conclusions, have inadequate understandings of evolutionary biology, or argue from ignorance just as you have.

P.S. - There are no pastors of atheism. We are not organized, we do not worship, we are not flocks beholden to the leaders. Atheism is a lack of religion.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store

foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016   #11
Zanahoria_Picante
Orange you glad she's not a banana?
 
Zanahoria_Picante's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Rep Power: 140
Zanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Going off what you said, Foxy, in your last post:

You say there are many things in science that have yet to be proven--that there are gaps in the evidence for certain theories, things yet to be discovered. The pursuit of knowledge, to seek empirical knowledge and evidence--and a disbelief in God--is the outlook on life you devoted your thinking and life to. Isn't there some room here to say that, while it's hard to let your guard down in the context of debate (particularly this debate), that, to a degree, this perspective is actively chosen and it isn't something so indisputable that it is self-evident in the physical world--that, in fact, it is something, despite its faults, you choose to uphold and argue?

Much like--in the same way--someone of faith upholds his or her beliefs, defends them, despite the fact there is no scientific evidence, other than the Word of God and the people who live his word? The weakness of science could be said to be that it never really fully reaches a complete conclusion about anything. The weakness of faith is indeed that its "conclusion relies upon itself," which is beautifully stated indeed, and, ironically, what faith is. :) "...Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. ...By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

What I'm saying is... ultimately a person chooses a worldview and therefore we are the same in that we defend what we uphold and the "gaps" in our views are filled in with some other element: The intent to believe it is true.

Faith does rely on itself; it does not rely on physical evidence. The weakness of science is, its "imperfection," is that... while there is beauty and poignancy in the pursuit, excitement, astonishment (in that the physical world is an incredible place and the closer you look, the more amazing it becomes) nothing in science is ever 100% certain, as it is with faith. Science is never complete, never done, never absolute. So, faith and science share the similarity that their greatest "weakness," as perceived by the opposing side, is the place where a person finds the most profound inspiration--each side does not see these places of inexplicability as a weakness; they see it as their view's greatest strength. Just as God, apart from what he has revealed about himself, cannot be fully explained, but we choose to believe; there are myriad things in science that have yet to be explained, but scientist choose to move forward, always.

I've always thought about this, but have never really been able to express it quite right. That's still not quite right. I may come back to this later. I just... wanted to say that. o.O
__________________
Zanahoria_Picante

..| |
.| | |
_____
\ love /-|
-\__/--|

"When I first read the dictionary, I thought it was a long poem about everything."
Steven Wright




;
Zanahoria_Picante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016   #12
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Zana, as always you are a true Christian in that you exemplify the tenets of your faith: love, humility, and acceptance.

I agree that both science and faith are approaches to answering the "gaps" in our knowledge of the world, and that they are not actually mutually-exclusive. Many of my scientific peers have found profound meaning through zen Buddhism, for example. I was too harsh in my post above.

I do not like when faith masquerades as science (intelligent design) or when people try to use faith-based arguments to "disprove" science because it does not fit with their theology. I dislike the most when people who adhere to a particular religion (or an interpretation of a particular religion) who try to force their relgion's rules and ideology on others.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store


Last edited by foxyphoenix; 07-13-2016 at 08:59 PM.
foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2016   #13
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Zana, as always you are a true Christian in that you exemplify the tenets of your faith: love, humility, and acceptance.
Please explain to us how somebody can be true to something or exemplify something that you claim isn't true or that doesn't exist?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"There are no pastors of atheism. We are not organized, we do not worship, we are not flocks beholden to the leaders. Atheism is a lack of religion."
Lacking formal organization does not make atheism a lack of religion. It does not follow. Atheism still makes positive claims about the nature of reality (namely that no gods exist) that must be supported. It's not a lack of religion. That's just a cop-out to avoid having to defend their belief that there is no God. It's an attempt to shift the burden of proof by pretending that atheism makes no claims and thus has nothing to defend. If someone wants to be an atheist, that's their choice, but they don't get to pretend they have no religious beliefs or avoid supporting their contention with evidence as theists must.

Not organized? Yeah, so you may want to check this out...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21319945

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rches/3489967/

and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists

Behold, the monument to atheism. What's a religious monument without declaring what the members of that religion believes?
This is what it says:

“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated.”

Funny thing about that though...

- Ever heard about "Red Cross" and all the other Christian founded hospitals? I have. Not any atheist hospitals though.

-Deeds? Christianity is all about deeds, selflessness and helping others. Ever heard about the "salvation army" and many of the other Christian charities? Not any atheist ones though.

-Atheists have the highest suicide rate if not one of the highest, so please, don't even talk about not escaping unto death. Christians are more comfortable dying, but we love the gift of life.

-Disease conquered, povery banished, war eliminated? The Christians are playing the leading role in those departments. Catch up to us.

Also see attachment at the bottom of this post.

Four miracles of Atheism.

1. Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community.

2. Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.

3. Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.

4. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science, but only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board unexamined.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
I do not like when faith masquerades as science (intelligent design) or when people try to use faith-based arguments to "disprove" science, because it does not fit with their theology. I dislike the most when people who adhere to a particular religion (or an interpretation of a particular religion) who try to force their relgion's rules and ideology on others.
Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"I posted about the Steves and 99.9% of biologists to counter your argument from authority regarding the 600 "scientific professionals" that the Discovery Institute uses to claim that there is dissent about the truth of evolution in the scientific community. There is not."
Are they not scientific professionals? So their PHDs are null and void, because they believe in GOD? Really? But okay, let's go with the thing about evolution. I can happily grant it hypothetically, because it could very well be a process implemented by the Creator. So lets play that game. 99.9% of NT and classical scholars out there happily realize that Jesus really was a historical figure. There are more people in the field who question evolution than there are who question the existence of Jesus.

Think about these names for example: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel – not one of them card-carrying atheists. And the makers of modern science were almost all theists as well. Just consider a few of the many names that can be mentioned here: Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Newton, Babbage, Pasteur, Mendal, Kelvin, and Clerk-Maxwell. They were all theists, and most of them Christians. As John Lennox notes, “Their belief in GOD, far from being a hindrance to their science, was often the main inspiration for it. Very often, atheists will lump all ancient religions together, imagining that any belief in the supernatural necessarily conjures up a chaotic, unpredictable universe in the minds of the believers. But it was actually the opposite with Christianity. It was only a belief in the biblical God that rescued people from a chaotic-universe mindset. Atheists typically need to use their imaginations to strip away what our culture has unreflectively absorbed from Christianity and think about how they would see the world if Christianity had never existed."

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/0...ldnt-have.html

A good portion of our modern science was founded by creationists.

Francis and Roger Bacon.

Galileo=Heliocentricity

Sir Issac Newton= Calculas and gravity, particle theory of light

Joseph Lister= Antiseptic surgery

Matthew Maury- Discovery of oceanography from Psalms 8:8

Louis Pastuer = sterilization, bacteriology he is one of the greatest biologists.

Johann Kepler =celestial mechanics astronomy

Robert Boyle= founder of chemistry ( a Christian ).

William Harvey= circulation of the blood.

Modern discoveries by Christians= Michael faraday -made the generator and electro magnetic induction

Samuel Morris made the telegraph and his first words Numbers 23:23 "what God has wrought."

James Simpson was the founder of ginecology founded chloroform on Adams deep sleep (he said his greatest discovery was that he had a savior.)

Charles Barage= Computer, speedometer, opthamaloscope ( a Christian)

Carolus Lineaus= Gave us the family of species the Genesis kind (believer in the Bible) Taxonomy.

Nicolas Steno= Father of the science of stratography

http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo6.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...encefaith.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01...fac003109.html

Another source confirm articles by Dominic Hassler, Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer have been approved as a part of secular conferences at Wessex Institute. This is not a one-time invitation to ID scientists, it’s open ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_...gy#cite_note-2

The following resource lists dozens of articles supporting ID, many peer-reviewed, and how these articles have led to specific advances in science:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr...ls.php/id/1505

The problem with many atheist reviews of ID articles is that they are obviously biased and non-objective:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/l...itical_reviews

Similarly, biologist Darrel Falk did not even address the main premise of Meyer’s Signature in the Cell:

“Nowhere in his review does Falk refute this claim or provide another explanation for the origin of biological information.” The atheist Falk's review is just propaganda:

http://biologos.org/blog/response-to...re-in-the-cell

Unfortunately, you probably think Falk debunked Meyer's book, even as you think you've debunked my article.

It seems you rely on ethos based rhetoric rather than logic based rhetoric. But there's is a danger in relying on the opinion of the establishment as a basis for your truth.

Recently, Monsanto was named Company of the Year, Ben Bernanke was named Person of the Year and President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.infowars.com/blind-health...y-of-the-year/

http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...947520,00.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...ce-prize-obama

You may not understand why this example is comical, but someday I hope you understand that the opinions of the establishment mean very little with regard to truth.

And there are many scientific truths in the Bible...

John 19:31-34 describes the medical conditions that are called paricardiol effusion and pleural effusion 2000 years before we knew what it was scientifically.

Luke 22:41-44 describes the medical condition that is called psychogenic hematidrosis 2000 years before we knew what it was scientifically.

oh wait, but there's even more?...

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013...ic-revelation/

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"The Earth is an open system: the sun provides more than enough energy to drive evolution and increasing complexity.
And how was the sun created with such purpose? Adding energy doesn't increase complexity or decrease entropy unless there is a mechanism in place to harness the energy and use it productively. Merely adding energy is destructive without a harnessing mechanism (e.g. atomic bombs). That's why the sun damages the paint on your car but provides energy to plants. Plants have an energy harnessing mechanism in their chloroplasts that allows them to capture energy from sunlight and use it. Without such a mechanism, however, energy from the sun (or other source) is not useful and cannot add complexity or fuel evolution.

The belief that nothing created something from nothing rather than something creating something from nothing actually takes a lot more faith, if the definition of faith is something that relies on itself for evidence, and therefore the burden of proof is on the former.

Science as an academic in itself is permeated with unprovable assumptions and instances where Faith is necessitated (i.e., when dealing with morality and ethics, metaphysical truths, and assuming mathematical and logical realism when doing science, to name a few). Although faith in the sense that one believes in the existence of God and salvation by faith through grace, without demanding physical proof is rewarded in the Bible, I'm not a type of Christian who denies reason and logic, because Christianity is the epitome of wisdom, logic, reason, etc. If a Christian is to believe that it's more "Christ-like" or "Christian" to concede on this point, well that is simply not Biblical (See: 1 Peter 3:15, 2 Corinthians 10:5, Colossians 4:5-6, Acts 6:8-10, Acts 18:4, Titus 1:9, Acts 18:28, Acts 17:22-31, Acts 19:8-10, Acts 28:17-31, Acts 9:26-30, Acts 2:14-41, Isaiah 50:4, Proverbs 15:23, Matthew 22:37, Luke 10:27, Mark 12:30-31)

I can tell you from personal experience that my life has been changed once I surrendered my heart and soul to Christ as Lord and Savior. You may not like what you see (read) from me and my worldview Foxyphoenix, but from a personal life standpoint, I have never been in a better place. And contrary to your assumptions, I have a lot of friends who know my views who are more aligned with yours. Just as one of many examples, one of my co-workers is a man caught up in homosexual practice. He knows I categorically disagree with it and we have passionate discussions outside of work about it, but we respect each other based on the fact that we both know our hearts are in the right place. Anyway, I spent many years either in ignorance of my vices and sins, or the vices i was aware of I would try to will power my way to overcome them, only to be met with temporary success. Sinful desires are now much more fleeting once I learned to surrender and let GOD take care of it for me, and once my focus shifted on not what GOD can do for me, but what GOD's will for me is and what glorifies Him. Each day I pray to put all my burdens and vices in GOD's hands and whatever His will for me is what I surrender to. Sin and vice is real bondage. Nothing is or has been more freeing and liberating than that the freedom from vice and sin through Christ. Am I perfect. Nope. Do I slip and fall down in moments of weakness. Of course. But repentance is key here. The core part of the Christian witness is to bring HEALING. But healing does not have to be perfect and endless, as many people unfairly caricature it to be. Healing on this side of heaven is never going to be completely perfect, but does that mean it does not actually happen? I used to doubt healing, to my shame. But God HAS healed me of many things (anger, lust, many other things) and continues to do so. (It also reminds me not to respond in kind to things such as giving negative reps with snarky and insulting comments to people's posts). According to Jesus (Mark 16:14-18), healing is a core part of the Christian witness. Healing is there to be done, advocated, and celebrated, not hidden, AND I like many who have surrendered to Christ as Lord and Savior have experienced this first-hand, and I'm grateful to GOD for it. By GOD's Grace, His law is but a fruit of Salvation. 2 Peter 1:10. I'm sharing this, because I do think personal experience is absolutely a part of evidence for Christ and the GOD of the Bible.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg atheist monument.jpg (66.6 KB, 2 views)
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 05-13-2017 at 10:52 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2016   #14
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

But back to your question about the existence of GOD (of which the above 2 paragraphs I do consider part of the overall answer).

Since existence is possible, it is reality, and to exist is greater than to not exist. If God does not exist, then how can it be greater to exist than to not exist? Does everything have a cause, or is it that every effect must have a cause? It's logically impossible for an infinite series of events to be the final cause of everything. The universe could never have come about. Or, "today" would never be, if it required an infinite series of prior events.
The reason is that the creation of the universe or the existence of "today" would always be some time yet in the future. No matter how hard one could try to conceive of the universe, as it is in the present, there would always be an infinite timescale to complete. It could NEVER happen.
That is the nature of infinity. It is infinite. That's why the law of causality in physics says only that every effect must have a cause...

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Expanding Universe, the Radiation Afterglow from the Big Bang Explosion, the great galaxy seeds in the Radiation Afterglow ( http://www.docstoc.com/docs/67984990...t-Galaxy-Seeds ), and Einstein's Second Theory of General Relativity, which science proves true since entropy of the universe and everything within it is fact...all point to the fact that the universe began from literally nothing physical or temporal.

Again, is it more reasonable to believe that nothing created something out of nothing or that something created something out of nothing?
Once there was no time, no space, and no matter, and than it all banged into existence out of nothing with great precision. And why couldn't natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces relating to the Big Bang prior to the Big Bang. Nature itself was created by the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something betyond nature, something we would call Supernatural. It also means that the Supernatural cause of the universe must at least be speaceless, because it created space? timeless, because it created time? immaterial, because it created matter? powerful, because it created it out of nothing? intelligent, because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed? and personal, because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something? can you show us how impersonal forces make choices?

Can you show us that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist can itself be spatial, temporal, or material? Can you show us how the foundation and purpose for moral values, mathematic, laws of logic and duties are grounded arbitrarily rather than by a giver/designer?
Can you show us that whatever caused our orderly, life-permitting universe to come into being a finite time ago isn't immensely powerful, intelligent, conscious, and hence personal? Can you show us how the universe came into existence by the necessity of its nature?

Can you show us how the universe no matter how big or how small, if it doesn't have a contingent, can have the reason for its existence within itself? Can you show us how the kind of cause the universe would have would not have to be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, and how this cause existed before the material universe did? And how the cause would have to be impersonal since it created the entire complex and finely tuned universe? Again, how do you get X to create X? If the answer is not GOD, then the only other possibility is numbers/shape definitions.
Can you show us how numbers alone cause anything into being?

"...the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work.
The more I understand science, the more I believe in GOD, because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication, and integrity of His creation."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...verse-God.html

--------------------------------------------------------

I highly recommend J. Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity and GOD's Crime Scene. J. Warner Wallace, is a foremost Cold Case Homicide Detective (now retired) who was an atheist most of his life until he applied cold case homicide detective techniques to the claims of the bible, including Jesus' resurrection). http://www.examiner.com/article/j-wa...alerts_article

J Warner Wallace also offers logical understanding to the problem of evil and suffering: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014...-bible-insert/

The diversity of the Resurrection appearances ought to give us confidence in their reliability. The Resurrection is not a work of fiction written by a single author or observed by a single witness in a single location at a single time of day or night. Instead, the appearances were recorded by a variety of authors and occurred in front of a diverse set of eyewitnesses in assorted locations and times. The expansive and differing aspects of these sightings ought to give us increased confidence in the authenticity and reliability of the accounts.

This list of appearances and evidential properties is available as a free downloadable Bible Insert. You can download it, along with all our free Bible Inserts, from the link in the right toolbar on the homepage at...

Continue reading: http://ow.ly/TmIgG

(FYI, relevant to this, you will see the following response by Foxyphoenix:

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Demonstrably false like having two incompatible versions of creation?
Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Demonstrably false like having two incompatible versions of the resurrection?
Notice how she didn't bother to give me specifics, so it can be addressed?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every time we argue over right and wrong, people are at least on a subconscious level recognizing some moral code that some things are right, and some things are wrong. We see that even with remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization, they too observe a moral code similar to everyone elses. Differences can certainly exist on a muncipal or some domestic situations and circumstances, but virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are for the most part universal. What basis for morality, hope, and meaning for life does atgheism provide? This is not claiming atheism is false, but if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, why ought it not be discarded? What is the objective basis for morality, life, and reason to live it if we are just wet robot molecules in motion, even though all these things (morality, life, reason) do exist? Also, if faith and science are mutually exclusive, where is it in the field of science that design is considered to be spontaneous? Besides living things here on Earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. That being stated, can you explain how it is more plausible to believe that a single strand of DNA which equates to one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica was created by random chance rather than an intelligent being? Can you explain how the human brain, which has approximately 10 billion gigabytes of capacity was designed from nothing by nothing via random chance? If theism didn't give us natural laws, but random chance naturalistic presuppositions, then why is atheism (a philosophically consistent form of it) asking us to abandon it?...


1. http://www.edge.org/conversation/tak...ience-on-faith

2. http://philosophynow.org/issues/73/Why_I_Am_An_Atheist

3. http://www.isnature.org/Files/Cartwr...Laws_draft.pdf


Something more one can explore: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...-of-darwinism/

Very important theoretical analysis explaining otherwise unexplained characteristics of DNA. Analogous to quantum tunneling effects in protein folding: Information processing in DNA occurs non-locally and non-classically. Life is therefore a non mechanistic, non deterministic process. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.4053v2.pdf
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 06-05-2017 at 09:24 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2016   #15
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Please prevent one testable piece of evidence that your specific god exists and created the universe.
There is none. There is no god: no Judeo-Christian god, no Norse god, no Hindu god, none. No one is watching over you. No one cares.
We can all rule out many of the main religious alternatives without the Bible by just by using cosmology. Of the major world religions, only Christianity, Judaism and Islam affirm a beginning of the universe, and time itself. So it’s not a very difficult thing to take those three live options, discard the others, and then move on to a historical analysis. Islam is out, because its holy book has obvious historical mistakes, like denying the crucifixion of Jesus in Surah 4:157, which virtually isn't denied by most if not all atheist and agnostic scholars. So you’re left with two live alternatives, and that dilemma can be decided by selecting the best explanation for the minimal facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. There are minimal facts, and there is a best explanation of those minimal facts.

http://veritasfidei.org/en/resurrecc...-los-eruditos/

“If Jesus Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God… If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”

https://youtu.be/LApmk3wuvq4

https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/

Post: The Evidentially Diverse Resurrection Appearances of Jesus...

The diversity of the Resurrection appearances ought to give us confidence in their reliability. The Resurrection is not a work of fiction written by a single author or observed by a single witness in a single location at a single time of day or night. Instead, the appearances were recorded by a variety of authors and occurred in front of a diverse set of eyewitnesses in assorted locations and times. The expansive and differing aspects of these sightings ought to give us increased confidence in the authenticity and reliability of the accounts.

This list of appearances and evidential properties is available as a free downloadable insert.

You can download it from the link in the right toolbar on the homepage at...

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013....wBcyrS5y.dpuf

Continue reading: http://ow.ly/TmIgG

https://worldviewofjesus.com/2013/02...-jesus-christ/

https://wellspentjourney.wordpress.c...acts-approach/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYxv48-0p6U

23 reasons why scholars know Jesus isn't a copy of pagan religions and myths...

https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.co...gan-religions/

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EC81524A2FF34E

Jesus among other "gods"...

https://www.google.com/search?q=ravi...&bih=280&dpr=4

1. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

The Anthropic Principles points out that there are over hundred variables to this Universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different...

http://web.archive.org/web/201107171..._principle.htm

The many contradictions within the Islamic doctrine...

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

So why the GOD of the Bible? Can the Quran or any other texts from other religions offer the following claims? The Bible is GOD’s letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life (i.e., kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more. These claims may seem dramatic (or unrealistic to some), but a careful and honest study of the biblical scriptures will show them to be true. Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers from 3 different continents (Asia (which of course includes the Middle East), Africa, Europe), yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span. Bible manuscripts (remember, there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution, and time. Again, the Bible is an account of GOD working with man throughout our history, with individuals and nations. What makes the bible unique is that it was not authored by one person, but again, inspired by GOD. It has a consistent message through 40 different authors that transpired over 1500 years, 60 generations. 66 books were written on 3 different continents in times of peace, war, slavery, and imprisonment. This is worth repeating. The very rich text tradition that we have, over 5600 manuscripts all agreeing at least 99% with each other, is not a small fact to be ignored. Not to mention the fulfillment of OT prophecies in the NT. If the NT is reliable, then the fact that it records fulfillment of OT prophecies is good evidence that the OT is reliable. (As you will see in Foxypheinix's response, she calls the legal historical case for the Bible as "using the Bible to prove the Bible.")

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible...-11652232.html

http://www.reasons.org/articles/arti...y-of-the-bible

No other religion has this. In addition to the evidence for the resurrection, there is the general reliability of the biblical text and verifiability of the religion of Christianity. Mormonism, for instance, claims there were vast civilizations with horses and steel in America thousands of years ago. This is demonstratively false. Islam makes similarly false claims, like that Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim. Both of these religions rely on one man who went alone and was visited by an angel. Their testimony is not verifiable.

The problem the Quran has is that Uthman in 653 AD gathered all manuscripts of the Quran and singlehandedly canonized it. He made six copies of his work and burned the manuscripts. So Muslims today have to trust that Uthman made the right decisions all by himself. They have no manuscripts earlier than 653 AD. Maybe before then they had them, but not anymore.

Buddha allegedly never referred to a Creator God nor did he deny God. There are some Buddhists who believe in a god, but the religion itself does not outright deny a supreme God. So non-theistic is the correct classification. I think there's a similar term - transtheism, neither atheism nor theism, and Apatheism: It’s not relevant whether there is a God or not; apathy towards the existence of God. The problem with Buddhist texts ia that nothing was written down until about 500 yrs. after the death of Buddha. This is quite different from the NT canon being completed so soon after Jesus' life and ascension.

Due to number of followers, duration of existence, and how reasonable it's claims are, you can narrow all religions down to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. As Buddhism is an atheistic religion, once you prove God's existence you can nix that one. You can then point of the contradictions and filth within the Qur'an as well as seen in the life of Muhammed and quickly nix Islam. Hinduism takes some explanation to debunk, but it easily can be when you can explain the errors of reincarnation as it is nearly false on its face. Once you are left with Judaism and Christianity, the only major difference is the role of the life of Christ. Given the undeniable truth behind the resurrection, Christianity is the only viable and most plausible religious worldview.

(Side note: You can disagree with the sources or author's religious or polical beliefs all you want, one still has to directly address the claims, context, and data they provide)

Can recent copies of the Bible be trusted?...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

Also, it is important to point out that Constantine had nothing to do with the compiling of the Bible. He died before the Council of Laodicea (363 AD) which was responsible for recognizing the books of the NT canon. Many people hold this misconception that Constatine compiled the Bible at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Nicea had nothing to with the NT canon and Constantine played virtually no role in the proceedings of the Council, itself.

Again, Constantine had nothing to do with it.
It was the Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D.
https://bible.org/seriespage/bible-holy-canon-scripture

Here are quotes of the New Testament, by the church fathers, prior to Constantine >
http://www.ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml

http://www.gotquestions.org/Constantine-Bible.html

Did you know that the New Testament is actually the most reliable of ALL manuscripts in the ancient world? Video shows that despite common rumors of unreliability, Chinese whispers, and tampered with text, the truth is that no other historical manuscripts of antiquity even comes close to the kind of reliability we see with the New Testament. Video just over 8 mins long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-lK2hLf_Sg

The New testament was a fulfillment of the Old testament law, so if the NT is reliable we can infer that the OT is reliable. The evidence for the reliability of the NT and the resurrection of Jesus shows that Jesus is God. Jesus upheld the reliability of the OT, giving us good reason to believe it to be accurate.

https://faithandselfdefense.com/2013...d-archaeology/

"The Archaeology of the Bible" by James Hoffmeier (jumps right into the main evidences, written by a well respected archaeologist, and has great pictures) - "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" by Kenneth Kitchen (meaty, but worth it).

http://2besure.blogspot.com/2015/12/...f-old.html?m=0

http://claudemariottini.com/2013/10/...and-the-bible/

http://winteryknight.com/2015/07/20/...stament-books/

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533

http://www.disclose.tv/news/red_sea_..._exodus/123111

Quote:
Originally Said by Zanahoria_Picante View Post
So, the question is not whether or not atheists have morality, have a system of morality; they do. The question is not whether an atheist can do good, can be moral; they do and they can be (as any person does and can be). From a Christian perspective, the question is whether or not what a person does pleases God, which it never could without faith in God (Romans 8:8, or see the whole chapter). A person's behavior can only please God if that person has a relationship with God. A person's soul can only be spared from eternal death if he or she has a relationship with God; for a Christian, a follower of Christ, that's what matters: Having a relationship with God and showing other people what that relationship is like -- loving, hopeful, kind, thankful, peaceful, faithful, selfless, gracious, enduring, patient, humble, forgiving -- and letting God work in the lives of nonbelievers so they choose a relationship with Him as well. That's what should matter to Christians; that should be the pursuit of Christians. Jesus said, "by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." That's what the world, secular or otherwise, so desperately needs: God's love. So, ultimately, a Christian's goal is not to overcome the evil of the world, but to introduce the world to the God who did.
^^ Amen.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 05-10-2017 at 11:29 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2016   #16
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Just because your religion has brought you peace does not mean it is the objective truth. I'm happy for you if you want to follow your version of Christianity, but when you insist that other people follow your religion's morals and laws, you have stepped out of bounds.

I asked for a testable piece of evidence that your religion was correct, and you offered the infallibility of the Bible, which is reliant on itself. That is not evidence.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
If the NT is reliable, then the fact that it records fulfillment of OT prophecies is good evidence that the OT is reliable.
If Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is reliable, then the fact that it records fulfillment of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix prophecies is good evidence that the previous Harry Potter books are reliable.

Quote:
In addition to the evidence for the resurrection, there is the general reliability of the biblical text and verifiability of the religion of Christianity. Mormonism, for instance, claims there were vast civilizations with horses and steel in America thousands of years ago. This is demonstratively false. Islam makes similarly false claims, like that Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim.
Demonstrably false like the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (historical interpretation of Genesis)?
Demonstrably false like the idea that bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19)?
Demonstrably false like a man being eaten by a whale?
Demonstrably false like an ark holding two of every kind of animal?
Demonstrably false like having a global flood that decimated everything that somehow no other contemporary civilization recorded (and would have, thus, survived)?
Demonstrably false like having two incompatible versions of creation?
Demonstrably false like having two incompatible versions of the resurrection?

Quote:
Due to number of followers, duration of existence, and how reasonable it's claims are, you can narrow all religions down to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.
This passage is the biggest leap in your logic and I hope you can see that. Number of (current) adherents does not imply that the religion is true. Duration of existence does not imply that the religion is true.
You cannot narrow the possible "true" religions into the five with which the modern world is most familiar, eliminate the other four, and then proclaim that Christianity is the only possible remainder.

For example, I could not say that a disease could only possibly be cured by one the five currently most-used antibiotics, prove that four of them were ineffective, and then declare that the fifth MUST be the cure. The original supposition--that there were only those five possibilities--is false, so the conclusion is also false.

There have been literally thousands of different religions and creation stories over time, and there will continue to be more religions created and forgotten as humanity progresses.


Atheism is, again, not a religion.

Quote:
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed;
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
I do not believe in or worship a superhuman controlling power of any kind. I do not have a particular system of worship, though I agree that my worldview also requires faith. However, atheists are not beholden to any particular set of laws by our faith, nor do we worship. It does not make positive claims about the world, it makes a negative claim. The burden of proof for something as fantastical as a mythical sky being who cares if I eat shellfish is far greater than for an uncaring, unintelligent universe. Secularism is the null hypothesis: until there is evidence to believe otherwise, I see no reason to believe in any god(s).

Abiogenesis is currently an unknown and I am willing to admit that.
However, atheism not currently having an evidence-based explanation for abiogenesis does not render it any less valid than your beliefs, because they also lack an evidence-based explanation for abiogenesis.
You claim that something cannot come from nothing, and then completely subvert the logic of that by claiming that your god has always and will always exist (did he come from nothing?). You've created a paradigm and then suggested that the only explanation possible is something outside of that paradigm. It is not logically consistent.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Adding energy doesn't increase complexity or decrease entropy unless there is a mechanism in place to harness the energy and use it productively. Merely adding energy is destructive without a harnessing mechanism (e.g. atomic bombs). That's why the sun damages the paint on your car but provides energy to plants. Plants have an energy harnessing mechanism in their chloroplasts that allows them to capture energy from sunlight and use it. Without such a mechanism, however, energy from the sun (or other source) is not useful and cannot add complexity or fuel evolution.
You mean like every single endergonic chemical reaction? Energy from the environment (heat, radiation, light) can interact with individual molecules to change their structures. That energy is "harnessed" in the changed chemical bonds: that's what chemical energy IS.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store


Last edited by foxyphoenix; 07-16-2016 at 12:50 AM.
foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2016   #17
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
You mean like every single endergonic chemical reaction? Energy from the environment (heat, radiation, light) can interact with individual molecules to change their structures. That energy is "harnessed" in the changed chemical bonds: that's what chemical energy IS.
It depends on whether the products of the chemical reaction are useful for furthering life. Changing chemical bonds is one way of harnessing energy, but only when the product produced has a function needed for living things. If the chemical reaction produces something that isn't needed or is harmful to living things, then the energy is destructive, not helpful.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Just because your religion has brought you peace does not mean it is the objective truth. I'm happy for you if you want to follow your version of Christianity, but when you insist that other people follow your religion's morals and laws, you have stepped out of bounds.
There is only one version of Christianity, and that is the Word of GOD (Biblical Christianity). Doctrinal differences based on second order questions do not undermine that fact. Also, my testimony where the heart was led by the Holy spirit rather than by works and behavior modification that is prompted by all other religions is a similar testimony shared by millions of people who came to Christ and are now Christians. Though not the only evidence, personal experience shared by millions upon millions is a valid component of the evidence for Christianity.

If your referring to the homosexual issue, what about having a public political movement centered specifically on that private bedroom habit is the basis for homosexual activism? As far as the ones who complain about us caring what they do in the privacy of people's bedrooms, every time a "coming out" story appears publicly, that proves they are guilty of that very complaint. The very existence of homosexual ACTIVISM itself discredits that complaint entirely, because it shows they are the ones guilty of making us care. Even when sodomy was illegal on the books, there has never been an epidemic of police arresting two adults of the same sex in the private homes. The only time homosexual were arrested is when they engaged in debauchery in public places; bars, parks, bathhouses, clubs, etc. There also has never been any cases of Christian pastors or priests banging on the doors of a person's home to make sure they weren't having homosexual sex.

A quick reality check here in the midst of all kinds of massive misconceptions: Preserving the religious freedoms on which our country was founded does NOT mean imposing religious faith on others. America is not a theocracy. Instead, as followers of Jesus, we offer life and hope and salvation through Him, calling on everyone to turn from sin and receive forgiveness through His blood. What people do with that message is between them and God.

As for moral and social issues like abortion and redefining marriage, we each have our rights as citizens to speak, to vote, to influence, and to act within the bounds of the law (rather than to take the law into our own hands), and we each have the right to call our leaders to account. On the flip side, the government must not put coercive pressure on religious groups to violate their faith. And so, just as it would be wrong to penalize a Muslim or Jewish caterer for declining to cater a wedding with pork, it would be equally wrong for the government to penalize a Christian photographer for declining to photograph asame sex couple's commitment ceremony.

So, contrary to the mockers and taunters, it is religious people being discriminated against in coercive ways, despite the fact that the vast majority of humanitarian services provided come from communities of faith and despite the foundational nature of religious freedoms in our country. I'm aware, of course, that there is a good chance that you will respond to this post with emotion and rhetoric rather than with reason and truth, but that won't stop me or any other biblical christian from putting the truth out there, knowing that, in the end, God's truth will stand while those who mocked and scorned Him will be here today and gone tomorrow.

America is not a theocracy in the Christian sense, but neither is she a "humanist" theocracy. There are the sacred things that belong to God, to the Church, the Bride of Christ. No man, no government has the right or the authority to change what belongs to God. The First Amendment guarantees that freedom of religion be protected from government intervention. This is why the Pilgrims and the Puritans risked their lives coming to this land. They lived under a monarchial theocracy, where government and religion were intertwined; the heritage of our nation said no to this evil.

True Christians, I believe, would never argue that we should force our morality on people via law. If that's your concern, you should, however, take that concern to the liberal politicians, who are guilty of forcing their morality on the public via laws (the mainstreaming of abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc) more than anybody.

The difference between Natural Law (which is inherent to Christianity) and Sharia Law or Secular Humanism that liberals embrace? Christianity is about change of heart through proper education and revival rather than "do or die" laws. Because Natural Law is inherent in Christianity, it can't and never can by it's very nature be theocratic.

We do need laws to protect the innocent (children, disabled, handi-capped) from unhealthy and destructive behaviors (see the Ten Commandments) and we do need to uphold the First Amendment with regards to proper education (Natural Law; social sciences based on hard evidence and large random cross sampling, lessons in history, etc). This is is the principle the liberals and libertarians of today have a difficult time with. Their policies would be great if there were no such thing as children, the disabled, the handicapped, etc.

Another example, Uganda put forth a state sponsored program called the "ABC" program that took a cultural approach to teaching youth "Abstinence first, Being faithful, and Condom use" together in behavioral synergy. Uganda youth decided themselves to take that information to heart and change their own behaviors. Uganda is one of the few African countries where rates of HIV infection have fallen, from about 15 percent in the early 1990s to about five percent in 2001. This is the example of what we mean by "guidance in the form of law." That is not imposition of government, but about government partnering with the best interests of their community via proper education.

See here:
http://m.pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/625.full

What we have going on with leftist forms of government is an imposition of fraudulent and corrupt indoctrination via legislative fiat. For example, ENDA represents government-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple. It is no different from forcing a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an “out and proud” adulterous “swinger.” It directly alienates the unalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.

So who's really pushing their morality on who?

A government that comes from Christian principles will will help to aid communities through sponsoring proper education. A secular leftist government has always ended up forcing indoctrination based on fraudulent and corrupted data to encourage generations to eventually be wards of the state.

Lets not fail to understand philosophical logic as it applies to Christian theism. My theistic faith tells me, if I'm right and it's true, I don't need to impose it and I don't need government approval for it, it will stand on it's own merits. The secular humanistic position is to trust human decree, approval and consensus as the source for our beliefs and morality. One of those philosophically defined realities does not lead to freedom. The difference lies between people in government who recognize a higher authority than themselves versus people in government who acts as authority lies only with man/woman and his or her whims.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
I asked for a testable piece of evidence that your religion was correct, and you offered the infallibility of the Bible, which is reliant on itself. That is not evidence.
I actually made a case as to how the Bible is the infallible word of GOD by showing how it was written. You're attempting to argue in circles now. I have not used the Bible to prove the Bible as the infallible word of GOD. Explaining how the Bible came about under such circumstances is not necessarily using external sources, but it isn't using itself to prove itself either. It's sort of a middle area. Can you show us how the historical aspect of how the Bible has been put together proven through the "legal historical" method, just like any other kinds of works of antiquity, is considered "internal?"

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
If Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is reliable, then the fact that it records fulfillment of [i]Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix[i] prophecies is good evidence that the previous Harry Potter books are reliable.
So? The prophecies in "Order of the Phoenix" were written by the same author who wrote their fulfillment a year or so later in "Deathly Hallows." Can you explain to us why that is or would be at all analogous to Jesus fulfilling multiple prophecies written by a number of men hundreds of years before He was born?

The issue with your comment here is a confusion of genre. The Harry Potter series was intended to be placed in a fictionalized world with only a tangential relationship to the "historical world" and setting that it is supposedly in [i.e. 1990's Great Britain].

The books contained in the Old and New Testaments are generally considered to be of a historical genre, recording and talking about events in the real world, in real history, and are telling the story of Israel within the context of the nations in the ANE. Whether or not the OT/NT are completely historically accurate is another issue altogether. But the fact remains that they are telling stories about the real world.

So the comparison between Harry Potter [or other fictional series] and the Bible is a rather inaccurate claim to make. I'm sure even the most skeptical of Biblical scholars would point that out. The issue with the OT/NT is not that they are fictional collections of books that modern Christians falsely believe are truth, but rather that they are collections of books telling a historical narrative and it is a very important question whether the OT is fulfilled in the NT. If we put them on the same level as Harry Potter, the arguer is able to dismiss them without much debate.

If anyone can show that the Harry Potter book is reliable (i.e. accurately reflects reality), then we could have that discussion. The problem is, it's not even meant to be set in reality. Thus, the argument fails completely. Talking about the reliability of an obviously fictitious book that isn't even set in our reality is absurd. Talking about the reliability of a book that claims to contain eyewitness accounts of real people and what they experienced in reality and which has known historical value and credibility and is believed by millions of people is a completely different thing.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 07-18-2016 at 06:22 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2016   #18
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Demonstrably false like the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (historical interpretation of Genesis)?
So can you show us how a second order question (age of the Earth) compromises the message of Jesus Christ's, saving through Grace and repentence?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Demonstrably false like the idea that bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19)?
Does modern science have a different classification system than science in ancient times? Could it be that creatures such as a bat were considered "birds" since they categorized all flying animals as birds? If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. Can you show us how you haven't imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong? Can you show us evidence that the people of Moses' time did in fact *think* in the same categories we do today, and that modern categories of speciation would of had made sense to that age? How is this not a fallacy of presentism? If the Bible says, "the sky is blue," can we change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong?

Can you tell us how it is false if the OT groups birds and bats together because they fly using wings? Is the modern choice to categorize by traits like fur and milk (mammals) is not the only possible way to categorize animals? And two hundred years from now, would it be possible that the "scientific" category could change again? By the way, are you absiolutely sure that the Bible did not call the bat a bird? Maybe it originally called the bat an עוֹף, which is what it is. Do you think it is possible that we translate that as "bird" because that's the closest corresponding word we have in English?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Demonstrably false like a man being eaten by a whale?
And this falls under the same fallacy atheists commit when it comes to the "bats are birds" argument. The actual text of the book uses the Hebrew term (dahg) that underlies the English translation “fish." Can you please show us how this isn't a broad term that always has the collective meaning ‘fish? And based on the fact that we are dealing with a different clasification system as explained in the "bats are birds" response, can you show us how the ordinary term for “fish” (dahg) would not necessarily exclude the whale in its application? Matthew quoted Jesus as saying, “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea creature, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, Someone greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:40-41; cf. Luke 11:29-30, 32). That being stated, can you show me the hermeneutical reason to take it literally? Could it be that Jesus spoke of Jonah’s ordeal as a real historical event, and/or he simply used it as a typological metaphor for His own crucifixion and resurrection, itself a miraculous event?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Demonstrably false like an ark holding two of every kind of animal?
Based on the animals that were around, Noah would of saved 35,000 species. The Bible states that the ark would of been 144 meters long (see Genesis 6). Scientists state that it is possible for a boat to stay aflot with 70,000 animals on board.

"With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappe’s book is “a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark” (John Woodmorappe, “A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Ark,” Impact No. 273, March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm ). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised, “all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.”

A carpenter John Huibers recreated the ark. You can see it with your pown eyes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUAcNpsXmGU

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Demonstrably false like having a global flood that decimated everything that somehow no other contemporary civilization recorded (and would have, thus, survived)?
Are you sure there aren't any extra-biblical evidences that point to a worldwide catastrophe such as a global flood? There aren't any vast fossil graveyards found on every continent and large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation? No oceanic fossils are found upon mountain tops around the world? None? Cultures in all parts of the world have some form of flood legend. Babilonians did (Ep of Giligamesh), Slavic did (the story of Kranjac), the Akadians did (the story of Utnapishtim), the Greek did (Deucalion and Pira).

http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/

http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood1.html

All of these facts and many others are evidence of a global flood.

http://www.christianbook.com/genesis...=AFFp=1011693&

"These are only a few of many examples from the study of the earth and its contained fossils that support a major world-wide flood. We can trust the Genesis record as a true account of an event in the past that affected the whole world." - Harold Coffin, Ph. D. Geology, paleobotany ( http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/question...ood-was-global
)

We have all kinds of evidence of catastrophism in the early earth that has affected the geological development of the whole earth. It is interesting that there is a scientific theory of a great flood caused by a comet impact in the Indian Ocean about 5000 years ago that caused a bottleneck in the human population. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J08PuCQChU4

Can you show us in terms of explanatory power and with parsimony how the conclusion that the global flood is "demonstrably false" that a great flood happened?

What then follows from that? At absolute worst you have to give up biblical inerrancy. At worst. Does it therefore follow that God doesn't exist? That Jesus wasn't a miracle worker who was raised from the dead? Obviously not, as the arguments of natural theology establish the existence of God without appealing to the bible, and as a good starting point, Habermas' minimal facts establishes the resurrection of Jesus by showing that it is just an ordinary historical document. Some scholars believe the flood to have been regional (I.e. within the Mesopotamian basin, which may also explain the existence of other great flood accounts), some believe it to be allegorical. So again, even if the atheist is 100% right and I assume the worst implication, how does that pose a threat to the Christian worldview?

Also, keep in mind, it could very well be that the universality of the flood need not necessarily mean it to be a global flood. If the effect is that it wiped out all life within the land that humans had lived in(there's good reason to believe that humanity had not yet spread far), then the judgement of sin would be sufficient even when limited to the region in which humans were living at the time.

You can get as much detail on it as you'd like here: http://www.reasons.org/theflood

If a Creator outside of time, space, and the material world can create time, space, and the universe, what makes you think it isn't difficult to believe these other miracles couldn't be easily achieved by that Creator? making sure a guy doesn't die in the belly of a whale for 3 days is cake walk for a being that created the universe with fine tuned precision. If God can create the universe, to do any miracle is no more difficult than for us to make a paper airplane or a real one, which is an incredible miracle to creatures like monkeys. For skeptics to think it's impossible is kind of like thinking that talking on the phone across continents is impossible. The greatest miracle in the bible is Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created... If we believe God did Genesis 1:1 then everything after that is entirely possible.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 09-21-2016 at 12:01 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2016   #19
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
This passage is the biggest leap in your logic and I hope you can see that. Number of (current) adherents does not imply that the religion is true. Duration of existence does not imply that the religion is true. You cannot narrow the possible "true" religions into the five with which the modern world is most familiar, eliminate the other four, and then proclaim that Christianity is the only possible remainder.

For example, I could not say that a disease could only possibly be cured by one the five currently most-used antibiotics, prove that four of them were ineffective, and then declare that the fifth MUST be the cure. The original supposition--that there were only those five possibilities--is false, so the conclusion is also false.

There have been literally thousands of different religions and creation stories over time, and there will continue to be more religions created and forgotten as humanity progresses.
I agree that just because a religion has many adherents, it doesn't mean it's right; take a look at Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and Islam, for a few examples. To the Biblical Christian, they are cultic or a different religion entirely. I think it was Augustine (or Anselm or Aquinas, lol) who claimed during their time that the proliferation of Christian belief and the Church could be considered a formidable argument for the Existence of God and the Good of the Holy Bible; I'm not sure if that argument still stands today, since there are billions of people who consider themselves Muslims, and we don't adhere to Islam of any sort. So you are correct to point out that it isn't a very good argument to claim that these five religions are true simply because of their duration and popularity. But the assumption here is from your response is that any possible religion could be true, which is not necessarily the case. It also assumes that every religion has mutually exclusive truth claims, which isn't necessarily the case either. Many religions share common truth claims. So the point made could actually be correct in making the claim that there are only five real possibilities.

All this is typical of what I've witnessed from atheists time and time again when they try to argue against the Bible. Can you interpreting a phrase or sentence with regard to genre or narrative context? Is it accurate to assume that every account of an event includes every significant detail about it? Is it correct to treat two different events or persons as the same, and the same event or person as different? Can we make accurate claims about the Bible while ignoring facts about the language and culture of the events, or assuming that those are identical to the cultural context we share today?


Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Atheism is, again, not a religion.

Quote:
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed;
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
I do not believe in or worship a superhuman controlling power of any kind. I do not have a particular system of worship, though I agree that my worldview also requires faith. However, atheists are not beholden to any particular set of laws by our faith, nor do we worship.

Scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions, it was philosophy that gave birth to science. So how can it attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle? And how can it establish that it is the only reliable form? How does scientific inquiry not require “getting outside” of science altogether and discovering from an extra-scientific vantage point that science conveys an accurate picture of reality? How is that not a dogmatic religious position? Can you explain to us how atheists do not have to believe that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process, that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected, and that the end of a person's life should seek development and fulfillment in the here and now based on the human personality alone? Can you also show us how atheists do not have to believe without much evidence that immortal salvation or fear of damnation are both illusory and harmful based on the scientific theory (not proven fact) that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces? Many atheists by logical conclusion of atheism itself religiously believe in, if It Feels Good Do It, that man answers only to himself, and there is no Absolute truth or right and wrong (moral and culture relativism). Can you show us how moral and cultural relativism can be scientifically proven with any level of plausability? Religious belief is not dependent on pastors, human leaders, physical buildings, etc. Atheism is a religious belief, because the first question an atheist must answer is whether there is a god or not. That's a religious question, and whatever the answer, a person's every decision flows from it.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2016   #20
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: intelligent design

.
Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Abiogenesis is currently an unknown and I am willing to admit that. However, atheism not currently having an evidence-based explanation for abiogenesis does not render it any less valid than your beliefs, because they also lack an evidence-based explanation for abiogenesis.
Well, the leading scientist on the field with the strongest theory for it, is Jeremy England an Orthodox Jewish, who claims that abiogenesis was not chance but something meant to happen, also through history you can find that most of the Christians thinkers where in favor of abiogenesis, such as Thomas Aquinas. It may be worth considering just what life as we know it is. It is an amazingly complex information system. In all if Dr. England is right, not only will the next Darwin be a theist (should be), but abiogenesis will no longer be thought as chance but as another factor of Fine-tuning.

And as Charles Lyell suggested, we infer what happened in the distant past by observing processes now in operation. The only thing we currently observe that creates specified complexity of the type seen in biological life, is an intelligent mind. Life cannot come from nonlife by any natural process, which is what science deals with. Of course life can come from nonlife if God brings it about, just as He violated the First Law of Thermodynamics by creating matter/energy out of nothing. But no natural process can do that. Genesis 1:24 "“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds." Isn't that still consistent with abiogenesis? Life is still coming from non-life. Though one has an intelligence behind it; the other assumes none, which then becomes a philosophical distinction, not a scientific one.

The Theist can be open to where the evidence leads us on this issue. The evidence that we do have tells us that life only comes from life. We have no evidence that non-life causes life ( I also admit that - sure the atheist can hold out for the hope that in the future - the evidence will start to show life comes from non-life. But I would point out that is blind faith. Theism has the best explanatory power for the Origins of Life vs. atheism. However, improbable it is: Life coming from non-life (out of chance alone, purposeless, randomly, etc.) seems to be the only game in town for the atheist.

So can you show us how the proper use of the scientific method that has yielded the Law of Biogenesis does not state the fact that life never comes from nonliving matter; that life only comes from life? Can you show us how the atheist doesn't smuggle in their naturalistic assumptions that it must have happened this way, because they have by definition disallowed supernatural explanations, while the theist considers both?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
You claim that something cannot come from nothing, and then completely subvert the logic of that by claiming that your god has always and will always exist (did he come from nothing?). You've created a paradigm and then suggested that the only explanation possible is something outside of that paradigm. It is not logically consistent..
These characteristics of the uncaused First Cause are exactly the characteristics theists ascribe to GOD. Again, these characteristics are not based on someone's religion or subjective experience. They are drawn from the scientific evidence, which I already provided in my above posts. You either didn't read what I previously wrote, or are conveniently ignoring it in order to continue making circular arguments. Can you show us how the First Cause must be inside of time, space, and matter? If the universe is not eternal, how does it not need a cause? On the other hand, if the universe has no beginning, why does it need a cause of its beginning? If a GOD exists who has no beginning, it is absurd to ask, "Who made GOD? Where does the Law of Causality say that everything needs a cause? Either the universe, or something outside the universe, is eternal. Can you provide for us all the scientific and philosophical evidence that tells us the universe is eternal? Can you provide us overwhelming evidence that the universe had a no beginning, that the Big Bang is false and mythical? In order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe, can you show us how an impersonal force has the ability to make choices?

I always find it pretty interesting how non-believers who cite attacks on the Bible will even bother investing any effort or time in disproving the GOD they already don't believe in. Feel free to keep this going Foxyphoenix, I love engaging in this stuff. Respectfully, this is actually nothing but a big help to me. It not only reinforces what the basis of correct Biblical exegesis and hermeneutic is laid out first in 1 Corinthians 2 when it comes to non-believers attempts ast exegesis. It shows how 1 Corinthians 2 is really the premise of Scripture. It proves it correct. GOD has already called this out. That is, GOD reveals Himself to those who humble themselves and look to Him...those who read His word with the intent to know and understand the author. Even though it would be better if you answered the questions, this back-and-forth helps me study and brush up on proper exegesis, which then only helps me with my resolve and faith in Christianity even more, as well as the edification of my faith in Christ.
So I look forward to your replies/responses. I can get very busy, and sometimes I can't respond right away, but I will eventually.

Last but not least, Dr. James Tour is among the most respected Organic chemists in academia. In this lecture, he lays out the chemical data concerning the formation of biomolecules for abiogenesis. It's highly technical, but I would highly suggest that you make the effort to watch the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=KD27xWj2Odc

And there is this...

"A new discovery makes explaining even that first cell tougher still. Fossils unearthed by Australian scientists in Greenland may be the oldest traces of life ever discovered. A team from the University of Wollongong recently published their findings in the journal “Nature,” describing a series of structures called “stromatolites” that emerged from receding ice.

“Stromatolites” may sound like something your doctor would diagnose, but they’re actually biological rocks formed by colonies of microbes that live in shallow water. If you visit the Bahamas today, you can see living stromatolites.

What’s so special about them? Well, they appear in rocks most scientists date to 220 million years older than the oldest fossils, which pushes the supposed date for the origin of life back to 3.7 billion years ago.

This, admits the New York Times, “complicate[s] the story of evolution of early life from chemicals ...” No kidding! According to conventional geology, these microbe colonies existed on the heels of a period when Earth was undergoing heavy asteroid bombardment, making it virtually uninhabitable. This early date, adds The Times, “leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred … .”

That is an understatement. These life forms came into existence virtually overnight, writes David Klinghoffer at Evolution News and Views. “[g]enetic code, proteins, photosynthesis, the works.”

This appearance of fully-developed life forms so early in the fossil record led Dr. Abigail Allwood of Caltech to remark that “life [must not be] a fussy, reluctant and unlikely thing.” Rather, “[i]t will emerge whenever there’s an opportunity.”

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-m...-harder-defend


You'll notice in Foxyphoenix's following responses merely deflects and never answers the questions. She makes philosophical ad hoc assumptions without addressing the scientific and evidence I have provided. For instance, why is criticizing something viewed as being obsessed? Does that mean that atheists are obsessed with Christianity? But even if I were obsessed, why is that an insult if in her mind if engaging in homosexual practice was normal and natural? It's because what she labels as "my obsession" is negative in her eyes, because she thinks it's normal and natural. Instead of just debating the correctness or incorrectness of that assumption, she assumes her position as correct and proceeds to name call or engage in ad hominen. Another example is, I said "the assumption here is from your response is that any possible religion could be true, which is not necessarily the case." - but how is that not true, just because there are 20 religions instead of 5? From Foxyphoenix's standpoint, how did Foxyphoenix prove what I said is not true? She rather just shifted the argument by focusing on the number of religions. This is the kind of ad hoc and ad hominem responses, among other diversive tactics, she engages throughout the following responses she makes.
Please go ahead, see for yourself and read through her responses...
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 09-21-2016 at 12:15 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Design (Card) Badie Tech Talk 3 09-28-2004 05:21 PM
[POLL] Do you like the new design? Weasel Poll Booth 22 09-09-2004 06:26 PM
New Design :) Weasel Front Page 8 08-30-2004 12:36 PM
New Design For Saloon "Black" Badie Art & Photography 1 06-20-2004 08:06 PM
Web Design for Money hai Jay Tech Talk 5 12-08-2003 10:38 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2006, Almost Smart