NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, man contaminates the air, and that's our screw-up. Why did the first great flood take place? Because man strayed too far from God. Who brought the first flood and will bring the next one if we keep polluting? God. We contaminate, He floods.

As for the scientific part, I'm not sure. I personally agree with you, but a scientist friend of mine tells me the world's going apesh*t within the next 20-30 years, and he's making preparations to go to live to the areas of the world which'll supposedly take the least damage.

he wont flood or anything remember how he did the rainbow to say hed never do anything like that again?

he wont flood or anything remember how he did the rainbow to say hed never do anything like that again?
I'm sorry, but I haven't heard anything like that. I might be wrong, though...

If god punished for straying from his word he probably should have done something during the Holocaust. What kind of god lets millions of his followers be destroyed?

I'd never follow a jerk like that.
He gave us free will. He gave free will to all of mankind, so He can't interfere with the problems that men have with each other. If He were to interfere with our affairs, there'd be no wars nor hunger. That's why the world's not a perfect place.

"So why will He flood the planet if we keep polluting it? We have free will n' all." You might argue, but we're damaging the entire Creation with that, not just ourselves, so He'll eventually have to set thing straight.

Also, remember that life was not destroyed during the Diluvium (it was saved, on Noah's Ark). The planet was cleansed.

I'm sorry, but I haven't heard anything like that. I might be wrong, though...
Genesis 9:12-16 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=9&version=31)

Touché. I didn't know that. Anyway, my point about free will stands.

correction:
the big bang theory and evolution in itself have been proven wrong.

correction:
the big bang theory and evolution in itself have been proven wrong.
Oh? really now lol

And has anyone ever considered that God created the universe with the appearance of age?
But why would he do such a thing? I mean, to think of god as a prankster is even worse than to think of him as a tinkerer.

All religion is definitely not single or unified. I mean, in reality, religion has caused more death than any other socio-economic force in the history of mankind. Yeah for religion!

I would argue that this award goes to government.

Nor God or religion had anything to do with the creation of man or the world. What humans need to be thankful for is that big ass meteor that took out the dinosaurs. With out that, no humans. I’m pretty sure God did not throw that meteor at the earth. You don’t even have to open a book, watch the science channel once and a while.

God told you that? Personally?

If not, then your faith lies not in God, but in those who told the stories for hundreds of years and eventually wrote them down, as well as each and every scribe between the first writing and the last, as well as every translator who had a hand in the version of the Bible you are reading.

God told us that. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc." I looked this up on many, many translations, all very similar. God inspired those writers who told the stories, and since God IS the truth, how could those inspired by him tell anything BUT the truth?

It seems to me that with all the empirical evidence that evolution is part of the natural scientific order of the world that religious people would have a rather hard time countering it.

So what exactly is the argument? Evolution (and the Big Bang) have been proven to be factual. Why deny what has been seen?

what proof is there of the Big Bang :confused: ? honestly curious here.

correction:
the big bang theory and evolution in itself have been proven wrong.
Perhaps you could spare a minute and tell us how it is wrong instead of just notifying us?

I'm gonna cry *cries alot* Why is it that Christians and Scientists hate explaining anything to meeeeee?

I hate you all. :(

Don't hate me plz, no one has asked me to explain anything...

correction:
the big bang theory and evolution in itself have been proven wrong.
Yes, intercessory prayer and repetitions over the course of the day to yourself have been obviously convincing.
So what're we all lacking that you're not?
Or, conversely ... proof?
Link???

*poke*

What is the point of all that? Especially if the bible only says Jesus will return to Earth.


Because it's part of the human spirit to explore, expand and search for knowledge. The knowledge, not ignorence, is what brings us closer to God... Not really a bible-friendly statement, but I'm not exactly going exclusively by the bible either.

what proof is there of the Big Bang :confused: ? honestly curious here.
Things like universal expansion
Radiation
Matter distrabution

And a whole lot of other datum (from radio echos to you name it) has a tendancy to point to an initial explosion of some sort

I suggest you re-read your scripture, my friend... it really isn't THAT hard to find 'elementalist' evidence of god... from the burning bush, to the voice of thunder, to Jesus turning death into life, through converting wine to blood.

Walking on water, the Baptism, the Spear of Destiny and Jesus' leaking blood and water on the soil, the formation of man from dust... really, the 'element' story is there throughout.

Wrong wrong wrong. God manifests Himself through physical or natural phenomena. This is not naturist. Naturism posits that God is Himself confined to the elements, or (as was the original suggestion) that there are six separate gods, each being the substance of an element.

First of all, I only know 5 elements - earth, wind, water, fire, heart! Go Captain Planet!

Secondly, there is (as I stated) no Biblical support whatsoever for the theory that there are many gods. In fact, all three God-religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) holds firmly to the doctrine of a single, all-powerful God, which cannot be reconciled with the idea of six limited "spheres of influence."

Finally, you've said nothing about my point that, if you define God as this kind of (frankly) new-old-age garbage, there is no argument whatsoever, because natural selection/Darwinism posits evolution from natural forces and this hexatheistic theory equates the same natural forces with God. Therefore there's no difference between ID, creationism, and Darwinism.

God I hate repeating myself!

God told us that. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc." I looked this up on many, many translations, all very similar. God inspired those writers who told the stories, and since God IS the truth, how could those inspired by him tell anything BUT the truth?

Very easy. They're human. So they can't handle the Truth, but can only re-present it.

Even Jesus taught in parables.

God told us that. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc." I looked this up on many, many translations, all very similar. God inspired those writers who told the stories, and since God IS the truth, how could those inspired by him tell anything BUT the truth?

Inspiration does not make a person infallible. We can all be inspired by God, but it does not make everything we believe or all the words we speak infallible. By definition, we are fallible beings. Thus, even revelation from a fallible being would be filtered through our infallible minds.

Meanwhile, to believe everything thus written, you would have to believe that what the people were telling you was true (In this case, Timothy). You have to have faith in them that they were telling the truth when they said they were inspired, and that they got the message right (although many have not). I find it is best to read Scripture with a prayerful attitude, checking it against the rest of the text, and against the guidance I receive from God, before believing it simply because another told me it is true.

I would argue that this award goes to government.

I would respond and say that the government I refer to is often a theocracy. Those appointed by god, such as the Kings of Europe, by the goading of the Pope, during the crusades, qualify as religious leaders.

what proof is there of the Big Bang :confused: ? honestly curious here.

On the most basic level, the big bang is shown by the otward expansion of the universe. It's a lot more complicated than that, but for more information read anything by Stephen Hawking.

Finally, you've said nothing about my point that, if you define God as this kind of (frankly) new-old-age garbage, there is no argument whatsoever, because natural selection/Darwinism posits evolution from natural forces and this hexatheistic theory equates the same natural forces with God. Therefore there's no difference between ID, creationism, and Darwinism.

God I hate repeating myself!
Just one question what is hexatheistic lol dictionary.com has nothing along with webster or google for that matter lol (seriously intrested)

Because it's part of the human spirit to explore, expand and search for knowledge. The knowledge, not ignorence, is what brings us closer to God... Not really a bible-friendly statement, but I'm not exactly going exclusively by the bible either.

Knowledge seems to be what drags people away from god. When the see that there are ways to do things and understand things that don't require devine intervention, the realize god doesn't fit into the scheme of things as easily as before.

Some people continue to try to "adjust" the image of god to fit the new schema, but again, that just makes god seem foolish and contradictory.

Empirical evidence of the existence (or non-existence) of God is a logical impossibility.

There can only be one. One cannot disprove god until someone attempts to prove the existence. Since that cannot be proven it is by default, non-existent.

Knowledge seems to be what drags people away from god. When the see that there are ways to do things and understand things that don't require devine intervention, the realize god doesn't fit into the scheme of things as easily as before...
...unless, of course, your concept of god does not include intervention.

This bread is my body, this wine is my blood. ...something like that.

How is wine associated with death? Blood is the 'stuff of life'.

Wine is associated with Blood; which is associative to "life" in Biblical interpretation and religion.... The illustration is a unity and "partaking" of Christ's office... in Life, Death and Resurrection.... In illustration the "Blood" was concidered a physical element of the "life-force" of a creature (Ref. Lev. 17:11,14 [pp Deut. 12:23])....

...unless, of course, your concept of god does not include intervention.

Which brings up a good question...what is the point of creating something and then not bothering with it at all?

(we could always go with "who created god?" but that seems to be unanswerable accept to non-believers. (A: Humans))

Knowledge seems to be what drags people away from god. When the see that there are ways to do things and understand things that don't require devine intervention, the realize god doesn't fit into the scheme of things as easily as before.

Some people continue to try to "adjust" the image of god to fit the new schema, but again, that just makes god seem foolish and contradictory.

and yet, there are still things that will never be explained away. Like where all the matter came from/or if you're into the singularity theory, where did IT come from? Or if you like the new discovery of creating matter with beams of something or other, where did THEY come from? However you look at it, the stuff of the universe had to come from somewhere and science will never explain it. A lot of things people have attributed to God is, yes, explainable without divine intervention. Some stuff is not.

Which brings up a good question...what is the point of creating something and then not bothering with it at all?
Not all concepts of god are independent Creators, either. For instance, the mother concept of god is one of being life itself; there is no "interference" by her in us, but rather a participation of us in her.

There can only be one. One cannot disprove god until someone attempts to prove the existence. Since that cannot be proven it is by default, non-existent.

I disagree with this logic. If it cannot be proven to be in existence or in non-existence, then you cannot deduce that since it can't be proven it defaults to non-existent. It, by default, falls into unprovable. Something unprovable does not necessarily equate to non-existent.

Wrong wrong wrong. God manifests Himself through physical or natural phenomena. This is not naturist. Naturism posits that God is Himself confined to the elements, or (as was the original suggestion) that there are six separate gods, each being the substance of an element.

First of all, I only know 5 elements - earth, wind, water, fire, heart! Go Captain Planet!


Actually, Naturism posits taking off all your clothes. I don't think that's what you meant...

The point I was making, that appears to have eluded you, is that the God of the Bible is very much like the elemental gods of an earlier time... almost like the Hebrew mythology of their 'one god of the sky', is an amalgamation of earlier stories. Perhaps you don't WANT to see the obvious elemental overtones in scripture, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Seriously, take an HONEST look through the bible, looking for what is written, rather than what you BELIEVE is there.


Secondly, there is (as I stated) no Biblical support whatsoever for the theory that there are many gods. In fact, all three God-religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) holds firmly to the doctrine of a single, all-powerful God, which cannot be reconciled with the idea of six limited "spheres of influence."


How wrong are you? First - the Hebrews had no idea of the Trinity, and yet often use the plural title of god (elohim). Second, there are several implied references to other gods (from the Genesis reference of 'like us', to the Psalms reference to 'god' standing among other gods). There is, of course, also no point in prohibiting putting other gods ahead of Jehovah, if Jehovah is the only god...

Looking deeper, the Trinity is a flawed concept, when attempted to reconcile with the Jewish 'elohim', because the 'spirit' in Hebrew, the animating force on earth (also referred to in Jewish literature as Shekinah) is female.


Finally, you've said nothing about my point that, if you define God as this kind of (frankly) new-old-age garbage, there is no argument whatsoever, because natural selection/Darwinism posits evolution from natural forces and this hexatheistic theory equates the same natural forces with God. Therefore there's no difference between ID, creationism, and Darwinism.

God I hate repeating myself!

Feel free NOT to repeat yourself, then... you appear to be doing little more than digging yourself in deeper... seriously, if you think evolution and Creationism become mysteriously compatible if you just assume an elemental god, then your grasp of either scripture, or the scientific method, is fatally flawed.

Actually, Naturism posits taking off all your clothes. I don't think that's what you meant...

Wouldn't it be fun to make THIS a religion. :D

There is, of course, also no point in prohibiting putting other gods ahead of Jehovah, if Jehovah is the only god...

I can't argue your other points but this one I see a flaw in. There CAN be a point in prohibiting putting other gods ahead of Jehovah even when He is the only God. If the people believed there were other gods, Jehovah might say stop worshipping those gods that don't really exist. Don't create a golden bull and call it a god and then put it before me.



Looking deeper, the Trinity is a flawed concept, when attempted to reconcile with the Jewish 'elohim', because the 'spirit' in Hebrew, the animating force on earth (also referred to in Jewish literature as Shekinah) is female.

I don't quite get why that makes it flawed?

I would respond and say that the government I refer to is often a theocracy. Those appointed by god, such as the Kings of Europe, by the goading of the Pope, during the crusades, qualify as religious leaders.


yeeeeeahhh but... that's iffy. The crusades are obvious. But not the Kings of Europe. Yes, they were supposedly appointed by God, but their wars weren't about God, their wars were about land and gold, ego and greed. I don't think religion had much to do with a lot of it.

I can't argue your other points but this one I see a flaw in. There CAN be a point in prohibiting putting other gods ahead of Jehovah even when He is the only God. If the people believed there were other gods, Jehovah might say stop worshipping those gods that don't really exist. Don't create a golden bull and call it a god and then put it before me.
But that prohibition is not 'putting other gods ahead of God', it is 'putting false gods ahead of God'.

By prohibiting putting other gods ahead of God, God acknowledges that there are other gods. Else, you are suggesting that we create gods.

But that prohibition is not 'putting other gods ahead of God', it is 'putting false gods ahead of God'.

By prohibiting putting other gods ahead of God, God acknowledges that there are other gods. Else, you are suggesting that we create gods.

I don't think so. Other gods can also mean false gods. And yes, I am suggesting that people have created some gods. Like the golden bull they created and began to worship at Sinai.

I can't argue your other points but this one I see a flaw in. There CAN be a point in prohibiting putting other gods ahead of Jehovah even when He is the only God. If the people believed there were other gods, Jehovah might say stop worshipping those gods that don't really exist. Don't create a golden bull and call it a god and then put it before me.


It is the word of god... we are not talking about what MAN recognises, but what GOD recognises.

A golden bull is not a god, in God's word, is it? Only in man's word..

So - God, prohibiting the worship of other gods (not at all, just BEFORE HIM) makes no sense unless God recognises the existence of other gods.

(And he does... Psalm 82:1 "A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods"...)


I don't quite get why that makes it flawed?

Because the person of god is always given as male, even when he animates Adam, for example... and yet, the quickening spirit of god is female...

I don't think so. Other gods can also mean false gods. And yes, I am suggesting that people have created some gods. Like the golden bull they created and began to worship at Sinai.
And of course Christianity couldn’t be one of them

:rolleyes:

There can only be one. One cannot disprove god until someone attempts to prove the existence. Since that cannot be proven it is by default, non-existent.

So everything is non-existent? At least using the scientific method, we cannot prove that anything exists. We can support the theory of its existence to the point that it may as well be proven, but we cannot actually prove that our measurements are not due to error. Thus, if anything that cannot be proven is, by default, non-existent, then nothing exists.

On top of that, if one cannot disprove something until someone attempts to prove it, then the scientific method is completely bogus - as one posits something and then attempts to disprove it - there is no attempt at proof at any point.

It also leads to the statement that nothing exists until we discover it. Thus, before anyone attempted to demonstrate evidence for the idea of an atom, it did not exist. Before anyone attempted to demonstrate evidence for an electron, it did not exist.

In other words, your statement is completely and utterly illogical.

It also leads to the statement that nothing exists until we discover it. Thus, before anyone attempted to demonstrate evidence for the idea of an atom, it did not exist. Before anyone attempted to demonstrate evidence for an electron, it did not exist.

In other words, your statement is completely and utterly illogical.
There is some evidence for certain things acting like this for example the multiplicity ie Schrödinger’s cat

Until we observe the cat it is either dead or alive


(not completely the same but along similar lines)

So everything is non-existent? At least using the scientific method, we cannot prove that anything exists. We can support the theory of its existence to the point that it may as well be proven, but we cannot actually prove that our measurements are not due to error. Thus, if anything that cannot be proven is, by default, non-existent, then nothing exists.

On top of that, if one cannot disprove something until someone attempts to prove it, then the scientific method is completely bogus - as one posits something and then attempts to disprove it - there is no attempt at proof at any point.

It also leads to the statement that nothing exists until we discover it. Thus, before anyone attempted to demonstrate evidence for the idea of an atom, it did not exist. Before anyone attempted to demonstrate evidence for an electron, it did not exist.

In other words, your statement is completely and utterly illogical.


Actually...you proved my point...what is to say that anything at all exists?

Proof (as it stands) would be evidence supporting a theory. Perhaps we should use data, or evidence, or factually based information gathered over time. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word proof.

So, where is the evidence of god's existence.

There is some evidence for certain things acting like this for example the multiplicity ie Schrödinger’s cat

Until we observe the cat it is either dead or alive


(not completely the same but along similar lines)

I had a feeling Schrodinger's Cat was going to be lurking somewhere in this conversation.

I had a feeling Schrodinger's Cat was going to be lurking somewhere in this conversation.
Yeah though comes about less often the pascalls wager does lol

I don't think so. Other gods can also mean false gods. And yes, I am suggesting that people have created some gods. Like the golden bull they created and began to worship at Sinai.
What, then, is your definition of a god, if people can make it?

There is some evidence for certain things acting like this for example the multiplicity ie Schrödinger’s cat

Until we observe the cat it is either dead or alive

Yes, but we aren't saying that the cat doesn't exist until we check. The cat exists - and in one of two states. We simply don't know the state.

So, where is the evidence of god's existence.

Personal experience.

Actually...you proved my point...what is to say that anything at all exists?

Proof (as it stands) would be evidence supporting a theory. Perhaps we should use data, or evidence, or factually based information gathered over time. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word proof.

So, where is the evidence of god's existence.
If you are aware of things, then they exist. You cannot be aware of nothing.

What, then, is your definition of a god, if people can make it?

I only have one definition of God. However man has been worshipping all sorts of things in history and calling them gods. the planets were gods, thunder was god, a snake was god, the earth was god. All these things have been called gods at some time in history. My point is simply Jehovah might have been telling Moses that he isn't to worship any of these things before Him.

If you are aware of things, then they exist. You cannot be aware of nothing.

I am aware of life on Mars...therefore it exists.

That is faulty logic completely. You can't even argue the existence of god with that.

Using that logic...I am unaware that children exist...do all the children everywhere disappear if I take no notive of them from now on?

Yes, but we aren't saying that the cat doesn't exist until we check. The cat exists - and in one of two states. We simply don't know the state.



Personal experience.

How do you know the cat exists? How do you know the cat hasn't slipped through a worm hole and dissappeared?

Feel free to share your personal experience. I hope there are pictures, because in regard to god, I may as well be from Missouri...you gotta show me.

Yeah though comes about less often the pascalls wager does lol

You have a wild sense of humor. lol

For those who don't know...
Pascal's Wager (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#4)

I am aware of life on Mars...therefore it exists.

That is faulty logic completely. You can't even argue the existence of god with that.

Using that logic...I am unaware that children exist...do all the children everywhere disappear if I take no notive of them from now on?

um.. i think you fell out of your chair on this one. Saying you are aware of something isn't the same as being aware of something. You are no more aware of life on mars than anyone else. Until its discovered, you aren't aware of it. Declaring you that you are unaware of something that you've been hitherto aware doesn't work either. She said when you become aware, then you know it exists. Your awareness has no bearing on its actual existance, that is just when its existance becomes real to you.

How do you know the cat exists? How do you know the cat hasn't slipped through a worm hole and dissappeared?

I guess you just gotta have faith



Feel free to share your personal experience. I hope there are pictures, because in regard to god, I may as well be from Missouri...you gotta show me.


Here we go again. :rolleyes:

I am aware of life on Mars...therefore it exists.

Yes, if you are aware of the thing, then the thing exists. If you are truthfully aware of life on Mars, then it exists. To say that you are aware of something when you are either unaware of it or somehow utterly aware of it's nonexistance is a faulty argument.


That is faulty logic completely. You can't even argue the existence of god with that.

Certainly you can. If you claim to hold belief in a thing and live your life by the dictates of that thing, then that thing might as well exist, at least for you, as it impacts your life as if it exists. If I honestly believe in the existance of a God or Gods and live my life as if they exist, then at least for me, there is existance. Is there some sort of abstract existance? Who knows? It can be argued that there is absolutely no proof for any sort of abstract metric of "existance" for anything as all anyone ever has to go on is their own observations.


Using that logic...I am unaware that children exist...do all the children everywhere disappear if I take no notive of them from now on?

No, they do not because you can not become aware of something and then become "unaware" of it. You can not put the genie back in the bottle. Once you have the knowledge, it is always there.

Yes, if you are aware of the thing, then the thing exists. If you are truthfully aware of life on Mars, then it exists. To say that you are aware of something when you are either unaware of it or somehow utterly aware of it's nonexistance is a faulty argument.



Certainly you can. If you claim to hold belief in a thing and live your life by the dictates of that thing, then that thing might as well exist, at least for you, as it impacts your life as if it exists. If I honestly believe in the existance of a God or Gods and live my life as if they exist, then at least for me, there is existance. Is there some sort of abstract existance? Who knows? It can be argued that there is absolutely no proof for any sort of abstract metric of "existance" for anything as all anyone ever has to go on is their own observations.



No, they do not because you can not become aware of something and then become "unaware" of it. You can not put the genie back in the bottle. Once you have the knowledge, it is always there.


That's what sublimation is for. You can essentially become unaware of anything you want. The brain is funny that way.

For the record, I don't believe that simply being aware of something means it exists, or even functionally exists. I was responding to someone who stated god exists because I am aware of it.

the stories in the bible are adapted from old folk tales even from before moses time and now loads of modern christians (evengilists mainly) call people like me heathen for some really daft reasons eg reading harry potter, cant believ these people arnt reprogrammed to be normal humans again :)

I only have one definition of God. However man has been worshipping all sorts of things in history and calling them gods. the planets were gods, thunder was god, a snake was god, the earth was god. All these things have been called gods at some time in history. My point is simply Jehovah might have been telling Moses that he isn't to worship any of these things before Him.

And yet, 'God' told Moses about other gods.... not about images that were meant to be like gods... not about god-like things.

Perhaps I was too hasty, but I would have assumed that 'God' would have been able to tell the difference between a graven idol, and a real god.

How do you know the cat exists? How do you know the cat hasn't slipped through a worm hole and dissappeared?

If I put a cat in there, then I know that the cat exists, even if it slips through a wormhole and disappears.

Feel free to share your personal experience.

Personal experience cannot be shared. The only way to obtain personal experience is to personally experience it.

I hope there are pictures, because in regard to god, I may as well be from Missouri...you gotta show me.

I don't have to show you anything, because I am not trying to convince you of anything.

That's what sublimation is for. You can essentially become unaware of anything you want. The brain is funny that way.

Ha! That's sophistry and you jolly well know it. To simply live in denial does not indicate that you have become unaware of the thing that caused your schism. Simply that you are choosing to ignore it as it doesn't fit into your world view.


For the record, I don't believe that simply being aware of something means it exists, or even functionally exists. I was responding to someone who stated god exists because I am aware of it.

Well, but that's the point, isn't it? Until you can produce an abstract metric of reality that doesn't rely on personal observation, then existance and reality is determined in an almost piece meal, case-by-case basis and if one believes in the existance of a thing and lives one's life accordingly then that thing does exist, at least as much as anything can be said to abstractly "exist". I was simply offering a refutation of your response.

If I put a cat in there, then I know that the cat exists, even if it slips through a wormhole and disappears.


This may sound silly, but apply Schrodinger's Cat to missing sock theory. We've all had the situation where socks go missing in the laundry. I know I put it in there but it seems to no longer exist.

If the cat slips through a wormhole, it no longer exists. There is no way for you to know that since the major postulate is that you can't open the box to verify whether or not the cat is there, alive, or dead.

This may sound silly, but apply Schrodinger's Cat to missing sock theory. We've all had the situation where socks go missing in the laundry. I know I put it in there but it seems to no longer exist.

The key word here is "seems to". Logically, we all know that the sock (or at least the material that went into it) exists somewhere, in some form. There was a sock, therefore there is still a sock somehwere. The fact that we can't find it doesn't mean that it has ceased to exist.

If the cat slips through a wormhole, it no longer exists. There is no way for you to know that since the major postulate is that you can't open the box to verify whether or not the cat is there, alive, or dead.

No, if the cat slips through a wormhole, it exists elsewhere in the universe. Again, it exists somewhere, in some form - we simply don't know where. You can't open the box to know if the cat is there, alive, or dead, but you put the cat in there, so you don't have to open the box to know if the cat exists.

the stories in the bible are adapted from old folk tales even from before moses time and now loads of modern christians (evengilists mainly) call people like me heathen for some really daft reasons eg reading harry potter, cant believ these people arnt reprogrammed to be normal humans again :)

I'm a christian and I read Harry Potter too. I've read all but the newest book so far.

And yet, 'God' told Moses about other gods.... not about images that were meant to be like gods... not about god-like things.

Perhaps I was too hasty, but I would have assumed that 'God' would have been able to tell the difference between a graven idol, and a real god.

I'm sure He could, but perhaps the people He was speaking to couldn't. You ever talk to a child and say things in a way that child will understand?

I am aware of life on Mars...therefore it exists.
Are you now? *raises eyebrow* How did you become aware of this? I'm sure NASA would like to know.

That is faulty logic completely. You can't even argue the existence of god with that.

Using that logic...I am unaware that children exist...do all the children everywhere disappear if I take no notive of them from now on?
No; faulty logic is inverting the conditional premise and claiming the opposite to also be true.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/deny.htm

This may sound silly, but apply Schrodinger's Cat to missing sock theory. We've all had the situation where socks go missing in the laundry. I know I put it in there but it seems to no longer exist.

If the cat slips through a wormhole, it no longer exists. There is no way for you to know that since the major postulate is that you can't open the box to verify whether or not the cat is there, alive, or dead.

it may SEEM to no longer exist, but you can be assured that somewhere, even through a wormhole where you will never find it again, it exists. I'm of the opinion that if you put a cat in a box, and then start fretting that its no longer in the box (and you're sure the box hasn't been opened or torn out on one side) you have OCD and need medication.

For the record, I don't believe that simply being aware of something means it exists, or even functionally exists. I was responding to someone who stated god exists because I am aware of it.
Are you aware of god? Or are you just aware there is a concept "god"? It is not the same thing.

I was responding to your question, "what is to say that anything at all exists?" The awareness justification is the metaphysical response to that.

I'm sure He could, but perhaps the people He was speaking to couldn't. You ever talk to a child and say things in a way that child will understand?
Then he underestimated our intelegence because he spoke well below our capability of understanding
So low it leads to misinformation

I'm sure He could, but perhaps the people He was speaking to couldn't. You ever talk to a child and say things in a way that child will understand?
God can't be wrong, so man's ancestors must be ignorant. :(

Are you aware of god? Or are you just aware there is a concept "god"? It is not the same thing.

I was responding to your question, "what is to say that anything at all exists?" The awareness justification is the metaphysical response to that.

I am aware that there are several concepts of god(s). I am not aware of any particular being that need have the title bestowed.

Except for maybe Tony Hawk, Skateboarding god...or Flea, bass playing god.

But really those are euphemisms. I know of no god.

Then he underestimated our intelegence because he spoke well below our capability of understanding
So low it leads to misinformation

He wasn't speaking to US. He was speaking to Moses. There is quite a difference in what we know and understand and what was known and understood in Moses' time.

He wasn't speaking to US. He was speaking to Moses. There is quite a difference in what we know and understand and what was known and understood in Moses' time.
Then he should have spent the time educating them rather then taking the easy way out and duming it down to the point of not providing accurate information. Or spend the time over the last two or three thousand years cleaning it up to make sure that his book was not a source for misinformation

Then he should have spent the time educating them rather then taking the easy way out and duming it down to the point of not providing accurate information. Or spend the time over the last two or three thousand years cleaning it up to make sure that his book was not a source for misinformation

?? Why? It isn't that tough to understand. Perhaps it translates slightly different in Hebrew and worked fine for them. I really don't know. My arguement with G-n-I was that there is a chance it COULD be other than what he said.

?? Why? It isn't that tough to understand. Perhaps it translates slightly different in Hebrew and worked fine for them. I really don't know. My arguement with G-n-I was that there is a chance it COULD be other than what he said.
I would tend to take his word on it being the Hebrew speaker

Even so if there is an error in translation it is at least obvious to me that you should be questioning a bit more of other parts of the bible are at least shed in a different light as to cultural and translation error comes into play

I would tend to take his word on it being the Hebrew speaker

Even so if there is an error in translation it is at least obvious to me that you should be questioning a bit more of other parts of the bible are at least shed in a different light as to cultural and translation error comes into play

I'm more inclined to think you're overanalyzing it and intentionally making it more difficult than it is. There are many ways to say something in every language. So he says don't put other gods before me, he could say false gods, he could've said imitaion gods. Other gods doesn't necessarily have to mean other REAL gods. I can see where they have the possibility to mean the same thing.

Are you now? *raises eyebrow* How did you become aware of this? I'm sure NASA would like to know.


No; faulty logic is inverting the conditional premise and claiming the opposite to also be true.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/deny.htm

I've noticed this faulty tactic being used a few times lately. Thanks for pointing that out.

I've noticed this faulty tactic being used a few times lately. Thanks for pointing that out.

I think you were missing the point of my tactic. See my above post.

I think you were missing the point of my tactic. See my above post.

No I got it. I was speaking of I've seen this faulty tactic a few times lately in several arguments, not necessarily referring to you Balipo.

I'm more inclined to think you're overanalyzing it and intentionally making it more difficult than it is. There are many ways to say something in every language. So he says don't put other gods before me, he could say false gods, he could've said imitaion gods. Other gods doesn't necessarily have to mean other REAL gods. I can see where they have the possibility to mean the same thing.
But again we come to the point that he has not spent the time or effort to make that clear for those of us who do not speak the original language


As is now in English it could very well be taken a different way … you would figure god would want you to be absolutely sure that what he was speaking about was the worship of false gods rather then not worshiping other existent gods

I think you were missing the point of my tactic. See my above post.
I think you missed the point, that your tactic had no real point.

That's what sublimation is for. You can essentially become unaware of anything you want. The brain is funny that way.

For the record, I don't believe that simply being aware of something means it exists, or even functionally exists. I was responding to someone who stated god exists because I am aware of it.
Ignoring something is not the same as becoming unaware of it. You can be subconsciously aware.

The rationalisation for existence in the philosophy of Metaphyics rests on definitions. It goes something like this:

- Existence includes every thing, everything that is.
- We have awareness of things, being a identification of things different from the thing that is 'me', the self. Being aware of these things different from 'me', we give them a label to identify them as 'things'. This is the function of the faculty of consciousness, to identify and label things.
- Existence is the totality of every thing that is (as well as other definitions, such as the state of being in existence).
- Existence is absolute: things either are or they are not. If there is no thing we are referring to, then there is nothing.
- We can be aware of things; we cannot be aware of nothing (i.e. there is nothing to be aware of).

You stated yourself that you are not aware of god, only the concept of god. Just as you are not aware of life on Mars, only the idea (or perhaps an imagining) of it.

Some people have become aware of god. That you haven't does not disprove that they have; and that they have does not prove that god exists, only that god exists for them. Existence isn't about proof, it's just about what is. For them, god exists; "He" is a thing they are aware of in way that they don't mean "concept of god" or an imagining, but an actual awareness of god.

But again we come to the point that he has not spent the time or effort to make that clear for those of us who do not speak the original language


As is now in English it could very well be taken a different way … you would figure god would want you to be absolutely sure that what he was speaking about was the worship of false gods rather then not worshiping other existent gods

its all semantics. Not worshipping "other" gods, fits both bills. It would have false AND/OR other existent gods covered. But you know, its 6 one way and half a dozen the other.

I think you missed the point, that your tactic had no real point.


Ignoring something is not the same as becoming unaware of it. You can be subconsciously aware.

The rationalisation for existence in the philosophy of Metaphyics rests on definitions. It goes something like this:

- Existence includes every thing, everything that is.
- We have awareness of things, being a identification of things different from the thing that is 'me', the self. Being aware of these things different from 'me', we give them a label to identify them as 'things'. This is the function of the faculty of consciousness, to identify and label things.
- Existence is the totality of every thing that is (as well as other definitions, such as the state of being in existence).
- Existence is absolute: things either are or they are not. If there is no thing we are referring to, then there is nothing.
- We can be aware of things; we cannot be aware of nothing (i.e. there is nothing to be aware of).

You stated yourself that you are not aware of god, only the concept of god. Just as you are not aware of life on Mars, only the idea (or perhaps an imagining) of it.

Some people have become aware of god. That you haven't does not disprove that they have; and that they have does not prove that god exists, only that god exists for them. Existence isn't about proof, it's just about what is. For them, god exists; "He" is a thing they are aware of in way that they don't mean "concept of god" or an imagining, but an actual awareness of god.

powerfully put!

No I got it. I was speaking of I've seen this faulty tactic a few times lately in several arguments, not necessarily referring to you Balipo.

Thanks....just wanted to make sure I wasn't confused...lol

I haven't come to this thread for a few days, and I don't know if people have said this before, but a big argument against evolution as the Christians have it is that since evolution states that chance is the way that humans came into being, these Christians deny Genesis 1:21: "(KJV) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. "

Thanks....just wanted to make sure I wasn't confused...lol

you probably are, but relax, so am I. :D

I think you missed the point, that your tactic had no real point.


Ignoring something is not the same as becoming unaware of it. You can be subconsciously aware.

The rationalisation for existence in the philosophy of Metaphyics rests on definitions. It goes something like this:

- Existence includes every thing, everything that is.
- We have awareness of things, being a identification of things different from the thing that is 'me', the self. Being aware of these things different from 'me', we give them a label to identify them as 'things'. This is the function of the faculty of consciousness, to identify and label things.
- Existence is the totality of every thing that is (as well as other definitions, such as the state of being in existence).
- Existence is absolute: things either are or they are not. If there is no thing we are referring to, then there is nothing.
- We can be aware of things; we cannot be aware of nothing (i.e. there is nothing to be aware of).

You stated yourself that you are not aware of god, only the concept of god. Just as you are not aware of life on Mars, only the idea (or perhaps an imagining) of it.

Some people have become aware of god. That you haven't does not disprove that they have; and that they have does not prove that god exists, only that god exists for them. Existence isn't about proof, it's just about what is. For them, god exists; "He" is a thing they are aware of in way that they don't mean "concept of god" or an imagining, but an actual awareness of god.


Kant's argument. I am not saying that my personal atheism disproves your concept of god.

Of course I would argue that any all powerful being would try to connect and make all aware, but that hasn't happened, nor will it ever happen more than likely.

Before we talk about an "awareness of god" first the concept must be planted. If a concept was never planted, say for example in the Pacific Island of Bougainville, prior to WWII, thye would not understand or be aware of god. Once the missionaries came, they were introduced to the concept of god. Few converted, but still utlilized the humanitarian aspect of the missionary.

If people randomly became aware of a god, there would be no need for proselytizing religion in any way. The schism in religion is part of a big race to see who gets the most people and keeps them over time.

I don't think god would have done it that way. If he is all powerful then why not just illuminate all his children. "Free will" is not a valid argument to this as free will and faith are 2 issues in 2 different directions.

Awareness of anything comes from understanding the concept of it first.

I haven't come to this thread for a few days, and I don't know if people have said this before, but a big argument against evolution as the Christians have it is that since evolution states that chance is the way that humans came into being, these Christians deny Genesis 1:21: "(KJV) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. "

Actually, that doesn't deny that God did it at all. God could have created the process, knowing that it would lead to the diversity of organisms we see now.

There is nothing at all in evolution to contradict creation, just Creationism.

Awareness of anything comes from understanding the concept of it first.

So you are telling me that infants are unaware of everything?

Evolution is still a theory, it is far from a proven fact and even Darwin himself expressed a disbelief towards the end of his life. God is the truth and he created the world 6,000 years or so ago.

Thus, even revelation from a fallible being would be filtered through our infallible minds.

So really, you can claim that certain parts of the Bible are inaccurate or incorrect when it suits your beliefs.

Evolution is still a theory, it is far from a proven fact and even Darwin himself expressed a disbelief towards the end of his life. God is the truth and he created the world 6,000 years or so ago.

A few things to point out...

1) Darwin's view was forced upon him on his deathbed so that his family could give him a "Christian" burial. He never recinded his statements about evolution, however, the church refused to perform last rites unless he said he was a christian. For his family he did and the church twisted it into "He denies all". Fact his, he never denied the evidence of the information he presented.

2) The earth is not 6000 years old. If it was, how could we find fossils from 1,000,000 years ago and longer? Don't say "god put it there to throw us off"...that just makes your god look evil.

I'm sure He could, but perhaps the people He was speaking to couldn't. You ever talk to a child and say things in a way that child will understand?

Possibly, but the problem is - FALSE gods are held separate to 'other' gods.

Exodus 20:3-4 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"...
"...Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..."

See - there are other gods, and there are graven images and likenesses of things in heaven above.

Anyway - think about that... likenesses of things in heaven above... implies there ARE things in heaven above... more evidence of the multiplicity of gods.

?? Why? It isn't that tough to understand. Perhaps it translates slightly different in Hebrew and worked fine for them. I really don't know. My arguement with G-n-I was that there is a chance it COULD be other than what he said.

You are opening a can of worms that NO Christian should ever open, my friend.

You are implying that the Hebrew scripture is open to a different interpretation than the literal. I don't think you realise what this would actually mean.

If Hebrew scripture cannot be relied upon to MEAN what it says, there go all your happy pretensions of Jesus as Messiah.

After all, if the Hebrew scripture is questionable, then ALL of the Christian myth built ON Hebrew myth is open to possibility of falsity.

If you argue that Hebrew scripture can be read in some more 'pleasing' fashion (to YOUR sensibilities), you put the entire basis of the Christian faith in jeopardy.

Evolution is still a theory, it is far from a proven fact and even Darwin himself expressed a disbelief towards the end of his life. God is the truth and he created the world 6,000 years or so ago.

To any who say "it's only a theory" or "it's still a theory" ....

LEARN WHAT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS

until you do, keep your mouth shut and stop showing your ignorance.

A theory is a tested explanation of the available data (facts.) It is continually tested and, if need be, modified as new data is available. It does not graduate to become a law though a law may be discovered from it

The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have of how species change through time (including changing into other species.) If you want to claim it's false, find some proof and publish it. Just remember, even in the unlikely event you succeed in toppling evolution, it still won't mean creationism is right unless you can produce evidence to support that claim as well.

If you want to show the world is only 6000yrs old, provide some evidence. But, don't waste my time with ICR's geologists, all of them made the 6000yr claim AFTER becoming fundamentalists and taking ICR's oath to ignore all evidence that was contrary to their beliefs. (IOW, thier oath to stop using the scientific method and to lie when evidence showed thye were wrong.)

As for Darwin's death bed recant. It is a lie, it never happened, and it's well documented that it never happened.

I haven't come to this thread for a few days, and I don't know if people have said this before, but a big argument against evolution as the Christians have it is that since evolution states that chance is the way that humans came into being, these Christians deny Genesis 1:21: "(KJV) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. "

Except.... it doesn't say HOW God created the whales, etc, now does it?

You'll also notice it doesn't mention where the angels come from, or how the earth was made... just that it 'was'.

No reason that God couldn't have made whales THROUGH evolution.

To any who say "it's only a theory" or "it's still a theory" ....

LEARN WHAT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS

until you do, keep your mouth shut and stop showing your ignorance.

A theory is a tested explanation of the available data (facts.) It is continually tested and, if need be, modified as new data is available. It does not graduate to become a law though a law may be discovered from it

The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have of how species change through time (including changing into other species.) If you want to claim it's false, find some proof and publish it. Just remember, even in the unlikely event you succeed in toppling evolution, it still won't mean creationism is right unless you can produce evidence to support that claim as well.

If you want to show the world is only 6000yrs old, provide some evidence. But, don't waste my time with ICR's geologists, all of them made the 6000yr claim AFTER becoming fundamentalists and taking ICR's oath to ignore all evidence that was contrary to their beliefs. (IOW, thier oath to stop using the scientific method and to lie when evidence showed thye were wrong.)

As for Darwin's death bed recant. It is a lie, it never happened, and it's well documented that it never happened.


Right on...except that the Darwin's Deathbed scenario os partially correct (see what I posted above).

So really, you can claim that certain parts of the Bible are inaccurate or incorrect when it suits your beliefs.

It has nothing to do with "suiting my beliefs". I form my beliefs through all the evidence I have at hand. That includes science, Scripture, and the guidance of God through prayer and reflection.

What I can claim is that the human beings who told the stories, wrote them down, scribed them, translated them, and interpreted them are fallible beings. Thus, it would be silly to take any of it on a simple, "I told you so."

Evolution is still a theory, it is far from a proven fact

...as are all ideas in science.

You are opening a can of worms that NO Christian should ever open, my friend.

You are implying that the Hebrew scripture is open to a different interpretation than the literal. I don't think you realise what this would actually mean.

If Hebrew scripture cannot be relied upon to MEAN what it says, there go all your happy pretensions of Jesus as Messiah.

After all, if the Hebrew scripture is questionable, then ALL of the Christian myth built ON Hebrew myth is open to possibility of falsity.

If you argue that Hebrew scripture can be read in some more 'pleasing' fashion (to YOUR sensibilities), you put the entire basis of the Christian faith in jeopardy.

Now, Grave, I fail to see how admitting the possibility that you might be wrong translates into "you are wrong.'

Are you mad? Some don't even believe in gravity(see link), why would they believe in evolution. Your crazy I tell you

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

Are you mad? Some don't even believe in gravity(see link), why would they believe in evolution. Your crazy I tell you

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

I heart the onion.

Now, Grave, I fail to see how admitting the possibility that you might be wrong translates into "you are wrong.'

That isn't it at all...

The point is:

Assumption 1: Christianity is true, because it is scripturally true.

Assumption 2: Jesus is Messiah, because the Hebrew Scripture describes a Messiah that Jesus unquestionably matches.


Problem 1: Some are saying that the scripture it is based on, may be faulty.

Problem 2: Some are saying that the Hebrew scripture cannot be necessarily relied upon to be accurate.


Conclusion 1: Christianity is ONLY true where there are NO questions on the scripture.

Conclusion 2: Jesus cannot be PROVED to be Messiah, if the scripture is open to error.

You are opening a can of worms that NO Christian should ever open, my friend.

You are implying that the Hebrew scripture is open to a different interpretation than the literal. I don't think you realise what this would actually mean.

If Hebrew scripture cannot be relied upon to MEAN what it says, there go all your happy pretensions of Jesus as Messiah.

After all, if the Hebrew scripture is questionable, then ALL of the Christian myth built ON Hebrew myth is open to possibility of falsity.

If you argue that Hebrew scripture can be read in some more 'pleasing' fashion (to YOUR sensibilities), you put the entire basis of the Christian faith in jeopardy.

that's not what i'm implying at all. All I'm saying is "other gods" can easily encompass false AND/OR real gods without losing a single bit of validity. When we call someone a blonde, that person's hair could be gold, yellow, white, platinum, or dark ash. Yet it is perfectly ok to just say blonde. You don't see people complaining that the person who said blonde didn't say yellow when they meant yellow. There is no reason why we should expect God to define every word He uses or to expect Him to only use words that can be used only ONE way.

As for Darwin's death bed recant. It is a lie, it never happened, and it's well documented that it never happened.

How do you document something never happened?

That isn't it at all...

Conclusion 2: Jesus cannot be PROVED to be Messiah, if the scripture is open to error.


Now you're gettin' it. :D
No one is claiming Jesus can be proven to be Messiah. If it were proven, there would be no need for faith.

How do you document something never happened?

Well...you take the documentation that was initially presented. Research more information, possibly closer to home than the documentation widely accepted. Then point out the differences.

Darwin said he was a Christian when he died - True

The church says Darwin renounced evolution in favor of Christianity - False

Darwin did so that his family could give him a Christian burial - True

Remember that Darwin and his family were treated horribly (though not as bad as Galileo) for publishing his findings. It isn't surprising that the church would turn his words to claim victory over a dead man.

That isn't it at all...

The point is:

Assumption 1: Christianity is true, because it is scripturally true.

Assumption 2: Jesus is Messiah, because the Hebrew Scripture describes a Messiah that Jesus unquestionably matches.


Problem 1: Some are saying that the scripture it is based on, may be faulty.

Problem 2: Some are saying that the Hebrew scripture cannot be necessarily relied upon to be accurate.


Conclusion 1: Christianity is ONLY true where there are NO questions on the scripture.

Improper conclusion that doesn't follow logically. You might conclude that Christianity is only true if the Scripture is true, based upon your assumptions. However, having questions about the Scripture does not make it untrue, and thus does not make Christianity untrue.

Conclusion 2: Jesus cannot be PROVED to be Messiah, if the scripture is open to error.

I don't know many that would claim it could be proven in the first place. That really isn't the point. LOL

Anyway - think about that... likenesses of things in heaven above... implies there ARE things in heaven above... more evidence of the multiplicity of gods.

I believe that the "real" gods that people worshiped (aside from the false ones) are demons.

I believe that the "real" gods that people worshiped (aside from the false ones) are demons.

That is the most confusing statement I have ever read.

Which ones are the real ones?

Which ones are the false ones?

That is the most confusing statement I have ever read.

Which ones are the real ones?

Which ones are the false ones?

I dont' believe there were any real ones.

Edit: Except Jehovah of course

that's not what i'm implying at all. All I'm saying is "other gods" can easily encompass false AND/OR real gods without losing a single bit of validity. When we call someone a blonde, that person's hair could be gold, yellow, white, platinum, or dark ash. Yet it is perfectly ok to just say blonde. You don't see people complaining that the person who said blonde didn't say yellow when they meant yellow. There is no reason why we should expect God to define every word He uses or to expect Him to only use words that can be used only ONE way.

I've already answered this... perhaps you missed that one?

That is the most confusing statement I have ever read.

Which ones are the real ones?

Which ones are the false ones?

Ok, I should have quoted grave n idle's comment more fully.

Possibly, but the problem is - FALSE gods are held separate to 'other' gods.

Exodus 20:3-4 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"...
"...Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..."

See - there are other gods, and there are graven images and likenesses of things in heaven above.

Anyway - think about that... likenesses of things in heaven above... implies there ARE things in heaven above... more evidence of the multiplicity of gods.

Now look at my post about demons.

I've already answered this... perhaps you missed that one?

no I saw it. However I'm clarifying my point that was both made and misconstrued BEFORE your answer. Also, I didn't find that answer adquate.

Ok, I should have quoted grave n idle's comment more fully.

Still not clear on who is false and who is not....I need names and reasons...

Now you're gettin' it. :D
No one is claiming Jesus can be proven to be Messiah. If it were proven, there would be no need for faith.

How did you work that out? Slow down a little, and think about it.

IF Jesus COULD BE proved to be 'messiah' of the Hebrew Scripture - ALL it would prove in REAL TERMS, was that he was the character that the Jews had been waiting for.

But, since the Hebrews could have been deluded when they WROTE the 'messiah' scripture, merely matching that scripture says nothing about the godhead.

I believe that the "real" gods that people worshiped (aside from the false ones) are demons.

Well done.

Many people think that Christianity is a form of mental aberration.

What is the significance?

How did you work that out? Slow down a little, and think about it.

IF Jesus COULD BE proved to be 'messiah' of the Hebrew Scripture - ALL it would prove in REAL TERMS, was that he was the character that the Jews had been waiting for.

But, since the Hebrews could have been deluded when they WROTE the 'messiah' scripture, merely matching that scripture says nothing about the godhead.

I suppose you could argue they might have been deluded if you wanted. Why not? We can make that arguement for everyone who's ever written anything historical though can't we?

Improper conclusion that doesn't follow logically. You might conclude that Christianity is only true if the Scripture is true, based upon your assumptions. However, having questions about the Scripture does not make it untrue, and thus does not make Christianity untrue.


But, if scripture cannot be relied upon, then those elements of Christianity that rely on scripture can no longer be ASSUMED true. Oh, PERHAPS they are true... but it is no longer logical to assume it.

Also, so much for the inerrant word of god, if even Christians are admitting it may have been misinterpreted.

Well done.

Many people think that Christianity is a form of mental aberration.

What is the significance?

Look, you implied that there were other "beings" in the world, akin to God, but not God. I think that they are demons.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg
agreed. BTW I hate 99% of you.

I suppose you could argue they might have been deluded if you wanted. Why not? We can make that arguement for everyone who's ever written anything historical though can't we?

Yes. Which is why I don't believe any 'history' that I can't corroborate.

The point isn't that they were deluded... the point is that there is a whole world of religions. Most of which compete with the others, in some respect. They CAN'T all be true.

Obviously, to MY thinking, all are equally false.

However, even the believer must admit that MOST religions make liars of each other... and thus, every religion is questionable to someone.

SO - if we assume that the Hebrew scripture COULD be just another one of those many 'not-true' holy books....

But, if scripture cannot be relied upon, then those elements of Christianity that rely on scripture can no longer be ASSUMED true. Oh, PERHAPS they are true... but it is no longer logical to assume it.

Also, so much for the inerrant word of god, if even Christians are admitting it may have been misinterpreted.

But I didn't claim it was misinterpreted, granted I didn't word it correctly.

agreed. BTW I hate 99% of you.
Thats nice :rolleyes: You fail to mention why we should care

Look, you implied that there were other "beings" in the world, akin to God, but not God. I think that they are demons.

That's very nice for you, I'm sure... and many people think that being religious is a kind of trauma of the brain.

Again, what is the point you are trying to make?

Do you have evidence of these other gods? Do you have evidence that they are demons?

Why are they called 'gods' in the Psalms, and elsewhere, if they are not gods?

Can 'God' not tell the difference?

But I didn't claim it was misinterpreted, granted I didn't word it correctly.

How else could the Hebrew be false?

If 'god' dictated scripture, and you are saying that your new pop translation is MORE ACCURATE than the Hebrew, then the Hebrew MUST have been misinterpreted, no?

Now, firstly I don't belive in a god but I've heard it desribed before that god couldn't just tell the deciples that "well you see over the course of thousands of years you slowly evolved from a monkey. Although before you were a monkey you were actually a fish and before you were a fish you..." instead, to lesson the impact he just said "uh yeah... I uh... dropped you down here in my image. Poof." Lot simpler don't you think?

no I saw it. However I'm clarifying my point that was both made and misconstrued BEFORE your answer. Also, I didn't find that answer adquate.

Then refute it, and show your reasoning.

As far as I can see, if you list two things...1) Other gods and 2) false gods... that implies that false gods are NOT the other gods of which you spoke.

Explain why this isn't so?

That's very nice for you, I'm sure... and many people think that being religious is a kind of trauma of the brain.

Again, what is the point you are trying to make?

Do you have evidence of these other gods? Do you have evidence that they are demons?

Why are they called 'gods' in the Psalms, and elsewhere, if they are not gods?

Can 'God' not tell the difference?

I'm confusing myself because there is actually not much point in what I said. Come to think of it, demons aren't "gods", they are, well, demons. The kind of demons that Jesus casts out and the kind of demons that empower Simon the "wizard" in Acts.

How else could the Hebrew be false?

If 'god' dictated scripture, and you are saying that your new pop translation is MORE ACCURATE than the Hebrew, then the Hebrew MUST have been misinterpreted, no?

did you read my example of blonde?

It is quite possible that because the people of Earth worshipped many gods throughout history. some worshipped Zeus, some Apollo, some Ra, some Athena, some Jehova. To the people of Earth, these were gods. It is perfectly reasonable for God to say, thou shalt not worship these other gods before me... even though He was well aware that they didn't exist.

Thats nice :rolleyes: You fail to mention why we should care
I also never claimed that you should... Bitch.

But since you seem to want to know. It's because I'm Galliam, and therfore I am the closest thing to a normal productive human (besides lunatic goofballs and tink) on this board.

Then refute it, and show your reasoning.

As far as I can see, if you list two things...1) Other gods and 2) false gods... that implies that false gods are NOT the other gods of which you spoke.

Explain why this isn't so?

See above

Edit: see my last post

I also never claimed that you should... Bitch.

But since you seem to want to know. It's because I'm Galliam, and therfore I am the closest thing to a normal productive human (besides lunatic goofballs and tink) on this board.
Well you had to know it was coming ... reported

What is your problem with the people on this board anyways?

Then refute it, and show your reasoning.

As far as I can see, if you list two things...1) Other gods and 2) false gods... that implies that false gods are NOT the other gods of which you spoke.

Explain why this isn't so?

Hey! That was my point!

did you read my example of blonde?

It is quite possible that because the people of Earth worshipped many gods throughout history. some worshipped Zeus, some Apollo, some Ra, some Athena, some Jehova. To the people of Earth, these were gods. It is perfectly reasonable for God to say, thou shalt not worship these other gods before me... even though He was well aware that they didn't exist.

First: Why did you attach THIS to the post you attached it to? It does NOTHING to answer the point I made.

Second: And yet (this feels like the same territory, for the hundredth time...) GOD differentiates between 'other gods' and 'false gods'. It's in the scipture - I even showed you.

Why are you trying to reinterpret god's word?

I also never claimed that you should... Bitch.

But since you seem to want to know. It's because I'm Galliam, and therfore I am the closest thing to a normal productive human (besides lunatic goofballs and tink) on this board.GalliamsBack: Official Warning - Flaming

Cease the personal attacks immediately.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

gotta go be seeing ya guys somewhere in this thread soon

Hey! That was my point!

I'm sorry, but it was such a nice point... and it was just sitting there, all pretty and shiny... :)

But, if scripture cannot be relied upon, then those elements of Christianity that rely on scripture can no longer be ASSUMED true. Oh, PERHAPS they are true... but it is no longer logical to assume it.

Who said it was ever logical to assume it? Some of us think it is more logical to examine it and try to determine if it is true, through various means, than to simply assume it at the outset.

Also, so much for the inerrant word of god, if even Christians are admitting it may have been misinterpreted.

Admitting that the word of God may have been misinterpreted hardly changes the idea that the word itself is inerrant. It just means that our interpretation of it is not inerrent, something that many Christians already believe to be true.

I'm confusing myself because there is actually not much point in what I said. Come to think of it, demons aren't "gods", they are, well, demons.

How do we know that the Hebrew word we now translate into "gods" meant the same thing to them as to us? Perhaps any being more powerful than human beings was considered to fall under the umbrella of "gods". Thus, if demons, angels, etc. exist, they would be "gods". However, God wanted to ensure that the ancient Hebrews were aware of his primacy above all of these beings - instead of what they may have been doing earlier, which would be lumping God in with all of these other beings. Over time, the word "God" came to only refer to this much more powerful being, while the rest, in order to denote their inferiority, were called only by their other titles.

Is this a fact? *shrug* I don't claim to know. But it is certainly possible.

I'm sorry, but it was such a nice point... and it was just sitting there, all pretty and shiny... :)

You my friend...are funny...

:)

You my friend...are funny...

:)

So, it has been said.

Of course, the battle lines are drawn over whether I am 'funny:strange' or 'funny:ha ha'. :)

So, it has been said.

Of course, the battle lines are drawn over whether I am 'funny:strange' or 'funny:ha ha'. :)

I give you funny ha ha for that post.

I give you funny ha ha for that post.

They don't call me "Mr Funny" for nothing.

Seriously... the amount I'm paying them, it most definitely is NOT for nothing...

So is faith (beyond using the bible as empirical evidence) based on assumption then?

First: Why did you attach THIS to the post you attached it to? It does NOTHING to answer the point I made.

Second: And yet (this feels like the same territory, for the hundredth time...) GOD differentiates between 'other gods' and 'false gods'. It's in the scipture - I even showed you.

Why are you trying to reinterpret god's word?

because you told me to refute it, and I asked if you saw my post on the blondes which is part of my refutation. Like I said about the gods, men worshipped other gods, I don't believe they existed but God said "knock it off". How is this reinterpreting God's word?

So is faith (beyond using the bible as empirical evidence) based on assumption then?

no, its based on experience

Second: And yet (this feels like the same territory, for the hundredth time...) GOD differentiates between 'other gods' and 'false gods'. It's in the scipture - I even showed you.

Why are you trying to reinterpret god's word?

God didn't differentiate between "other gods" and "false gods" he differentiated between "other gods" and "Grave-n-idles". Other gods can still encompass false gods (gods that men worshipped and thought existed but didn't...to the best of my knowledge. i.e. Apollo, Thor, Zues, Odin, Ra,Hades, Athena and so on.) God could have easily said, don't worship Apollo, Ra, and named everyone, but instead He said, don't worship those "other gods" before me.

I'd describe myself as religious. Now, did evolution happen? I don't know and don't want to know. It's not that I am a fervent creationist at heart. It's just that I never cared for science that in no way affects me. Take the Hubble Space Telescope. What was the big deal about seeing a few cosmic dustballs?

Just because i thought it pertinent .....

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie


When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere-except in the public imagination. Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage. To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning : the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival : large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas : microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time -- changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms -- such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization -- can drive profound changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not -- and does not -- find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics : how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals -- which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs. When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite : natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)-- bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species. Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection -- for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits -- and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils -- creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds -- it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features . They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures. Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution -- what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin : researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.) Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap -- a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems. Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all. Complexity of a different kind -- "specified complexity" -- is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life. Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally. "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism -- it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover -- their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics. In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?) Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion -- that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain. Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas. Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
--


Phew. How do we feel now?

:eek:

Just looked this over. My apologies to mods if this post is too long - it contains all relevance to topic point and i didn't want to split it up.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves... If they are not yet alive, how are they organizing themselves? And what does the formed in space add to any of this?


8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite : natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

again, to say something as complex as a cell was formed over time makes no sense if there wasn't life to begin with. Natural selection doesn't apply to inanimate objects does it?
The computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed. Um, that isn't random. That is guided.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)-- bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

How by having the DNA spliced? Does't that still require a splicer?

Yep... im catholic and beleive in evol.... I believe that God created everything and that bible (specially genesis) is not to be understood literally... so evol might just have been god's mechanism lol...

no, its based on experience

What experience? And why doesn't everyone have it?

biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves... If they are not yet alive, how are they organizing themselves? And what does the formed in space add to any of this?

Many non-sentient and even non-living things seem to form organization to the naked eye. Like magnets, different nucleic and amino acids, while not being alive themselves, will find other acids and the formation brings about a change that, after so much of this "magnetism" builds into something alive. It takes a long time and not every combination works.


again, to say something as complex as a cell was formed over time makes no sense if there wasn't life to begin with. Natural selection doesn't apply to inanimate objects does it?
The computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed. Um, that isn't random. That is guided.
Computers are never truly guided at all. There is always an air of randomness, but this not the point. It makes perfect sense to say that cells formed over time, it makes little sense to say it was just put there.



How by having the DNA spliced? Does't that still require a splicer?

What is a splicer? You're DNA splices itself, that's how you are able to form cells that aid in the creation of new humans, i.e. babies. It isn't like splicing cables. I'd prefer a better word, but this one is ingrained on the DNA vocabulary now.

Kant's argument. I am not saying that my personal atheism disproves your concept of god.

Of course I would argue that any all powerful being would try to connect and make all aware, but that hasn't happened, nor will it ever happen more than likely.

Before we talk about an "awareness of god" first the concept must be planted. If a concept was never planted, say for example in the Pacific Island of Bougainville, prior to WWII, thye would not understand or be aware of god. Once the missionaries came, they were introduced to the concept of god. Few converted, but still utlilized the humanitarian aspect of the missionary.

If people randomly became aware of a god, there would be no need for proselytizing religion in any way. The schism in religion is part of a big race to see who gets the most people and keeps them over time.

I don't think god would have done it that way. If he is all powerful then why not just illuminate all his children. "Free will" is not a valid argument to this as free will and faith are 2 issues in 2 different directions.

Awareness of anything comes from understanding the concept of it first.
I never suggested that your atheism disproves any concept of god, either. Perhaps this Kant person said it? Wasn't me.

I'm tired of arguing the Christian God, so I'm going to skip the middle part of your post.

Awareness comes with experience of a thing. The thing can be real (physical matter, energy, heat, etc.) or unreal (thought, feeling, concept, imagining, etc.). Whether or not we have a concept of the thing beforehand, we can experience it, and hence become aware of it.

[QUOTE=Hoberbudt]

The computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed. Um, that isn't random. That is guided.

QUOTE]

Actually, you are partly right here, this simulation wasn't that brilliant. The generation was random, which simulates gentic variation reasonably, but the problem is that there was a goal: tobeornottobe. This limits the relevence to evolution as there is no goals, only reactions to environmental pressures.

However, IDers often seem to argue against evolution by calculating probabilities randomly, which is wrong. Genetic variation may be random, but evolution is not, as natural selection favourse more effective genotypes. This means that the ridiculously small probabilities given by IDers have nothing to do with evolution.

I never suggested that your atheism disproves any concept of god, either. Perhaps this Kant person said it? Wasn't me.

I'm tired of arguing the Christian God, so I'm going to skip the middle part of your post.

Awareness comes with experience of a thing. The thing can be real (physical matter, energy, heat, etc.) or unreal (thought, feeling, concept, imagining, etc.). Whether or not we have a concept of the thing beforehand, we can experience it, and hence become aware of it.

Kant was the philosopher who originally developed the argument in your initial post (well not initial, but you know what I'm referring to).

And just to clarify...

So you are saying that all we need to do is think/feel/imagine a concept and we are then aware of it and it becomes real (or at the very least real to us)?

did you read my example of blonde?

It is quite possible that because the people of Earth worshipped many gods throughout history. some worshipped Zeus, some Apollo, some Ra, some Athena, some Jehova. To the people of Earth, these were gods. It is perfectly reasonable for God to say, thou shalt not worship these other gods before me... even though He was well aware that they didn't exist.
This kind of ignores the fact that God is Truth. If God says "gods" but means "not-gods", then there is a contradiction.

This kind of ignores the fact that God is Truth. If God says "gods" but means "not-gods", then there is a contradiction.

Doesn't the inability to lie contradict omnipotence?

Kant was the philosopher who originally developed the argument in your initial post (well not initial, but you know what I'm referring to).
I find that unlikely that Kant first developed the argument, as I was quoting basic Metaphysics, first formalized by Aristotle in the 3rd Century B.C.

And just to clarify...

So you are saying that all we need to do is think/feel/imagine a concept and we are then aware of it and it becomes real (or at the very least real to us)?
No, I said no such thing; if we think/feel/imagine a concept, it is a concept. That says nothing about a real god, or becoming aware of a real god.

This kind of ignores the fact that God is Truth. If God says "gods" but means "not-gods", then there is a contradiction.

It almost sounds like you are arguing for Pantheon.

I've heard explained before though, just to add to the discussion, that God said it was a misunderstanding and the gods worshipped by Greeks and Romans, et. al. were infact angels. Just a thought.

It almost sounds like you are arguing for Pantheon.

I've heard explained before though, just to add to the discussion, that God said it was a misunderstanding and the gods worshipped by Greeks and Romans, et. al. were infact angels. Just a thought.
I'm arguing for Logic.

Hadn't heard that one.

Doesn't the inability to lie contradict omnipotence?
I am sure it does.

I find that unlikely that Kant first developed the argument, as I was quoting basic Metaphysics, first formalized by Aristotle in the 3rd Century B.C.

Aristotle developed the ideal, Kant expounded on it later. Happens alot in philosophy. Call it philosophical evolution ;)



No, I said no such thing; if we think/feel/imagine a concept, it is a concept. That says nothing about a real god, or becoming aware of a real god.

Thanks, that is exactly why I wanted to clarify. I didn't want to misconstrue what you were saying.

I agree on that point. We can create a concept for ourselves. Whether that concept can be developed into a physical or philosophical idea brings the next point. Simply having a concept of god doesn't make it so.

I'm arguing for Logic.

Hadn't heard that one.

I can't argue for or against. It was a teacher in my confirmation class I was paid to go to in order to satisfy my grandmother. I don't know how reliable a source you'd like to call it, but I thought it might add to the discussion.

Aristotle developed the ideal, Kant expounded on it later. Happens alot in philosophy. Call it philosophical evolution ;)
Alright, my bad.

Thanks, that is exactly why I wanted to clarify. I didn't want to misconstrue what you were saying.

I agree on that point. We can create a concept for ourselves. Whether that concept can be developed into a physical or philosophical idea brings the next point. Simply having a concept of god doesn't make it so.
Why did you think I was saying such a thing? I mean, what is it in what I said that led you to believe I might think that? Where did I go wrong?

Why did you think I was saying such a thing? I mean, what is it in what I said that led you to believe I might think that? Where did I go wrong?

I'm not saying you said that, literally. I'm trying to make a tangental extension of what you are seeing in order to come to a logical conclusion.

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm sorry if I am.

I'm just trying to build discussion and understanding by way of logical conclusion.

I'm not saying you said that, literally. I'm trying to make a tangental extension of what you are seeing in order to come to a logical conclusion.

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm sorry if I am.

I'm just trying to build discussion and understanding by way of logical conclusion.
I'm not offended. It was just the, "So you are saying..." bit that threw me. :p

because you told me to refute it, and I asked if you saw my post on the blondes which is part of my refutation. Like I said about the gods, men worshipped other gods, I don't believe they existed but God said "knock it off". How is this reinterpreting God's word?

Still pulling the same trick.

God specified two separate entities... the 'false' gods, and the 'other gods'.

Faced with a choice of who to believe, yourself, or God... I'd choose the one with the higher authority.

I wonder what makes you think that is you?

You have yet to refute... or actually, even approach that difference.

God differentiates between false gods, and 'other' gods. You claim they are the same. You have yet to illustrate WHY your 'version' is better than the scriptural version.

I'm not offended. It was just the, "So you are saying..." bit that threw me. :p

I do use that phrase too much. I think it throws people off. I'll try to come up with something new. :)

God didn't differentiate between "other gods" and "false gods" he differentiated between "other gods" and "Grave-n-idles". Other gods can still encompass false gods (gods that men worshipped and thought existed but didn't...to the best of my knowledge. i.e. Apollo, Thor, Zues, Odin, Ra,Hades, Athena and so on.) God could have easily said, don't worship Apollo, Ra, and named everyone, but instead He said, don't worship those "other gods" before me.

Rubbish.

Go back to the verses I quoted.

Rubbish.

Go back to the verses I quoted.

Other than verses...what makes you so sure they were false gods? I mean they were there first and still had a longer reign than Yahweh. Shouldn't they be given some sort of job?

biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves... If they are not yet alive, how are they organizing themselves?


Arguing from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Just because you cannot work out how something happened, has no bearing on the truth or likelyhood of it happening.

Do you understand the principle on which Soap works? A simple saponification reaction - which basically requires the 'building blocks' of soap, 'organising themselves'.


And what does the formed in space add to any of this?


'Formed in space' means that the biogenesis stage becomes irrelevent. If the components of life were 'shipped in', it doesn't matter what the earth's environment was, vis-a-vis creating life.


again, to say something as complex as a cell was formed over time makes no sense if there wasn't life to begin with. Natural selection doesn't apply to inanimate objects does it?


Yes. Try pushing different shaped blocks through different shaped holes. The 'fittest' will 'survive'.


The computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed. Um, that isn't random. That is guided.


Only guided in as much as any 'survivable lifeform' is preserved. A common failing of those who fail to understand evolution, is the assumption that there can only be ONE working model.

'Real-life' evolution allows myriad different 'answers' to a given problem, and this is modelled in the computer-example, by preserving ANY letter arrangements that achieve part of the phrase.

A better example would be to accept ANY word components as 'valid', any words as 'valid', and any complete phrase as 'valid'.

The use of JUST ONE 'accepted' phrase, is NOT a limit on the experimental validity, just a pre-defined limit to show HOW QUICKLY a recognisable product can be delivered by random elements governed by survival.

Other than verses...what makes you so sure they were false gods? I mean they were there first and still had a longer reign than Yahweh. Shouldn't they be given some sort of job?

Hell, ALL gods are equally valid to me... but the Bible makes distinction between 'false' gods and 'other' gods... and yet SOME still argue that Christianity is monotheistic.

(And that is DESPITE the fact that they accept a pantheon, anyway... three 'gods', and a handful of named demi-gods).

Hell, ALL gods are equally valid to me... but the Bible makes distinction between 'false' gods and 'other' gods... and yet SOME still argue that Christianity is monotheistic.

(And that is DESPITE the fact that they accept a pantheon, anyway... three 'gods', and a handful of named demi-gods).


I thought other gods were just the gods that weren't that great to begin with...like Fallon the god of daisy seeds, or Joe the god of mildly crappy diner coffee.

Sorry...it's Friday...I'm not required to be productive...

I thought other gods were just the gods that weren't that great to begin with...like Fallon the god of daisy seeds, or Joe the god of mildly crappy diner coffee.

Sorry...it's Friday...I'm not required to be productive...

Sounds like someone might be a closet Eddie Izzard fan.

(And, if you're not.... why not?)

Sounds like someone might be a closet Eddie Izzard fan.

(And, if you're not.... why not?)

Umm...I may be but I haven't even admitted it to myself.

Because I can't remember who Eddie Izzard is at the moment.

But I try

Umm...I may be but I haven't even admitted it to myself.

Because I can't remember who Eddie Izzard is at the moment.

But I try

Comedian. Stand-up. English. Transvestite.

(Very funny, in a post-Monty Python fashion).

Also, something of an actor... parts in "Shadow of the Vampire", "Mystery Men", etc...

Comedian. Stand-up. English. Transvestite.

(Very funny, in a post-Monty Python fashion).

Also, something of an actor... parts in "Shadow of the Vampire", "Mystery Men", etc...

Now I know who you are talking about...

I don't if I'm a fan, but the man is pretty funny...

Many non-sentient and even non-living things seem to form organization to the naked eye. Like magnets, different nucleic and amino acids, while not being alive themselves, will find other acids and the formation brings about a change that, after so much of this "magnetism" builds into something alive. It takes a long time and not every combination works.

seeming to form and forming are two different things.


Computers are never truly guided at all. There is always an air of randomness, but this not the point. It makes perfect sense to say that cells formed over time, it makes little sense to say it was just put there.

No it makes no sense to say cells formed over time, unless you think there was life before the cell. random selection doesn't apply to dead matter. Dead matter doesn't adapt to its surroundings in hopes of surviving, its dead.

This kind of ignores the fact that God is Truth. If God says "gods" but means "not-gods", then there is a contradiction.

no, it doesn't. Look its like the blonds. If God referred to a group of people and called them blondes. Then later we found out some had yellow hair and some had platinum hair and still others had ashen hair, does this make God wrong for saying blonde? If God is talking to men, and men have been calling these not-gods gods, then I see it as perfectly reasonable to say don't worship those other gods. Maybe He could have finished with because they're not real, but perhaps His goal was for them to know it was wrong whether they were real or not.

Still pulling the same trick.

God specified two separate entities... the 'false' gods, and the 'other gods'.

Faced with a choice of who to believe, yourself, or God... I'd choose the one with the higher authority.

I wonder what makes you think that is you?

You have yet to refute... or actually, even approach that difference.

God differentiates between false gods, and 'other' gods. You claim they are the same. You have yet to illustrate WHY your 'version' is better than the scriptural version.

NO, God specified "other gods" and "grave-n-idles". Other gods can be both others and false ones.

Rubbish.

Go back to the verses I quoted.

Here you go, you tell me.

Exodus 20:3-4 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"...
"...Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..."

He makes two statements. Thou shalt have no 'other gods' before me..

and

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or likeness etc.

You're putting too much emphasis on this and making it tougher than it really is. No other gods can encompass any and/or all, real and/or unreal gods.

One of my teachers was Catholic and one of the fiercest defendents of evolution I've come across who hasn't written a book. In my metaphorical book, he's also the greatest teacher I've ever had. One of my online buddies, Brad Johnson, is also a Catholic, and believes full-heartedly in Evolution and understands the qualification of scientists to do their own critical analysis, rather than these ignorant twats who flutter around the public radar with their meaningless dialog concerning evolution.

Here you go, you tell me.

Exodus 20:3-4 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"...
"...Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..."

He makes two statements. Thou shalt have no 'other gods' before me..

and

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or likeness etc.

You're putting too much emphasis on this and making it tougher than it really is. No other gods can encompass any and/or all, real and/or unreal gods.

You aren't paying attention to the verses... you are so caught up in what you BELIEVE that you can't see what is WRITTEN.

"Thou shalt have no OTHER gods before me".... no mention is made of 'falsity'... this is all inclusive, perhaps... one might imagine, EXCEPT that it is followed by another clause:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee.... any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above"...

Which states that there are 'things' in heaven, of which likenesses may be made, that could be considered as gods.

Whichever way you look at it, there are DEFINITELY (according to scripture) god-LIKE beings (other gods)... and there are idols (false gods).

READ the scripture.... it's all there.

no, it doesn't. Look its like the blonds. If God referred to a group of people and called them blondes. Then later we found out some had yellow hair and some had platinum hair and still others had ashen hair, does this make God wrong for saying blonde? If God is talking to men, and men have been calling these not-gods gods, then I see it as perfectly reasonable to say don't worship those other gods. Maybe He could have finished with because they're not real, but perhaps His goal was for them to know it was wrong whether they were real or not.
But that's not a good example. The example says, "look, humans interpret something this way. They use generalizations and inaccuracies in their speech, so God, who is takling to humans, can have the same flaws." But he can't, because he's God. God, who is Truth itself, must say what he means, and mean what he says.

Note, I am not questioning, as Graves is, what is written in the Bible. I am just pointing out that your explanation in defense of what is said there is not adequate.

:)

biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves... If they are not yet alive, how are they organizing themselves? And what does the formed in space add to any of this?




again, to say something as complex as a cell was formed over time makes no sense if there wasn't life to begin with. Natural selection doesn't apply to inanimate objects does it?
The computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed. Um, that isn't random. That is guided.



How by having the DNA spliced? Does't that still require a splicer?
As per the first, it should be noted that extremophiles and thermophiles don't exactly qualify as life in the cellular sense but that doesn't stop them from behaving as such in every other sense. Maybe it's like frogs and glycol catalysts.
-
I think with the prevalence of bonding and the nature of things to combine and propegate you might be talking about something a little deeper and harder to deal with than common usage of "life" terms. Guided by what? Prove it. That's the point.

seeming to form and forming are two different things.




No it makes no sense to say cells formed over time, unless you think there was life before the cell. random selection doesn't apply to dead matter. Dead matter doesn't adapt to its surroundings in hopes of surviving, its dead.

Define "dead matter" Are you saying anything that doesn't breathe and or locomote?

Any individual part of any cell in your body would be considered dead matter on it's own. Only through the combination of every part of every cell is there life. It is not so overly complex as to be impossible to understand by humans.

Tell me, if there was an intelligent designer, why would he/she/it/them create a bunch poor locomoting, self-destructive beings with poor survival instincts? That doesn't seem to be a very intelligent design.

You aren't paying attention to the verses... you are so caught up in what you BELIEVE that you can't see what is WRITTEN.

"Thou shalt have no OTHER gods before me".... no mention is made of 'falsity'... this is all inclusive, perhaps... one might imagine, EXCEPT that it is followed by another clause:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee.... any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above"...

Which states that there are 'things' in heaven, of which likenesses may be made, that could be considered as gods.

Whichever way you look at it, there are DEFINITELY (according to scripture) god-LIKE beings (other gods)... and there are idols (false gods).

READ the scripture.... it's all there.

I dont' believe I'm getting caught up in anything of the sort. I believe you are forgetting which side of the argument you're on. You are the one who keeps putting falsity in there. Let me refresh your memory.



Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Still pulling the same trick.

God specified two separate entities... the 'false' gods, and the 'other gods'.

Faced with a choice of who to believe, yourself, or God... I'd choose the one with the higher authority.

I wonder what makes you think that is you?

You have yet to refute... or actually, even approach that difference.

God differentiates between false gods, and 'other' gods. You claim they are the same. You have yet to illustrate WHY your 'version' is better than the scriptural version.



I never stated they were the same and I never said they were both there. I said the phrase "other gods" can encompass both. And it can. I'm not saying it does, but you've been denying the fact that it can and I say you're wrong. I'm reading the words the same as you are. I'm saying those words leave room for something OTHER THAN the view you keep stating, with some sort of cold hard certainty, that it can only mean one thing. I'm thinking the only person getting caught up in what they want it to mean is you.

Zues and Apollo were FALSE gods. They could also be described as OTHER gods, since men worshipped them thinking they were real. They weren't idols. They were "other gods". Idols were made in their image, so those were off-limits as well, hence the second part of the commandment. God didn't want men worshipping Zues and He didn't want them making golden statues of Zues either.

I'm Christian, but I'm also an Evolutionist... I believe that God made animals, which eveolved over time, and eventually eveolved into humans. In that way, God did create everything, it just didn't literally take seven days... what in the Bible is completely literal, anyway?

But that's not a good example. The example says, "look, humans interpret something this way. They use generalizations and inaccuracies in their speech, so God, who is takling to humans, can have the same flaws." But he can't, because he's God. God, who is Truth itself, must say what he means, and mean what he says.

Note, I am not questioning, as Graves is, what is written in the Bible. I am just pointing out that your explanation in defense of what is said there is not adequate.

:)

He also said Love Thy Neighbor. What is a neighbor? The people who live next door? What do you suppose He meant? The way I've always heard it, neighbor, in this context means ALL of mankind. Do not covet thy neighbor's wife. I don't think that means the married tart down the street is OK though. If He can call all of mankind "thy neighbor" then I think "other gods" suffices. The point behind the commandment isn't to be precise about all the things we could and couldn't worship. The point was we aren't supposed to worship anything real or imagined before Him. I feel He made that quite clear with the words He used.

Define "dead matter" Are you saying anything that doesn't breathe and or locomote?

Any individual part of any cell in your body would be considered dead matter on it's own. Only through the combination of every part of every cell is there life. It is not so overly complex as to be impossible to understand by humans.

Tell me, if there was an intelligent designer, why would he/she/it/them create a bunch poor locomoting, self-destructive beings with poor survival instincts? That doesn't seem to be a very intelligent design.

in this case I mean inanimate objects.

No it isn't overly complex for our understanding, however we can't make one and so far, no one has ever witnessed one creating itself.

You don't think its very intelligent? Then why is it referred to as the Marvel of Evolution? Evidently we don't have such poor survival instincts, we've managed to run the world for ages. I'd say our survival instincts have gotten us quite a long way.

in this case I mean inanimate objects.

No it isn't overly complex for our understanding, however we can't make one and so far, no one has ever witnessed one creating itself.

No one has ever witnessed anything being Intelligently Designed on the level of Human Beings either. That makes ID impossible. Studies go on to attempt to bind things to make simple lifeforms with the ability to evolve, and some groups in Mesa Verde (either NM or AZ) are on the verge of doing so.

If they are able will you change your mind and see evolution?

You don't think its very intelligent? Then why is it referred to as the Marvel of Evolution? Evidently we don't have such poor survival instincts, we've managed to run the world for ages. I'd say our survival instincts have gotten us quite a long way.

I've never heard it called the "The Marvel of Evolution" except in goofy documentaries as way to get your attention. We survive through logic and reasoning. Only newborns, with what is called their "reptilian mind" have instincts to fed the source of food and feed. Humans, after the age of about 6 months, lose all their instincts as it were.

And we don't run the world...it runs us.

No one has ever witnessed anything being Intelligently Designed on the level of Human Beings either. That makes ID impossible. Studies go on to attempt to bind things to make simple lifeforms with the ability to evolve, and some groups in Mesa Verde (either NM or AZ) are on the verge of doing so.

If they are able will you change your mind and see evolution?

For one, I don't discount evolution. I just know it won't work without origin of life and studies to binding things will never show things can bind themselves.



I've never heard it called the "The Marvel of Evolution" except in goofy documentaries as way to get your attention. We survive through logic and reasoning. Only newborns, with what is called their "reptilian mind" have instincts to fed the source of food and feed. Humans, after the age of about 6 months, lose all their instincts as it were.

And we don't run the world...it runs us.

Take a look at ANY part of the internal workings of a human and find something that does it's job that isn't a total wonder on how it works. Thought and intelligence did not evolve. They aren't physical entities that could adapt to surroundings.

For one, I don't discount evolution. I just know it won't work without origin of life and studies to binding things will never show things can bind themselves.

Actually, that's what they are hoping to prove. I still haven't seen a comprehensive study on Intelligent Design. Where is the "Watch as god makes a dolphin" documentary?

Take a look at ANY part of the internal workings of a human and find something that does it's job that isn't a total wonder on how it works. Thought and intelligence did not evolve. They aren't physical entities that could adapt to surroundings.

Actually, each system of the body can be explained. Intelligence evolved, or we'd still live in caves. Human kind (and its predecessors) realized that protection from the elements was needed, as well as a mobile homestead to follw herds and crops...etc. That is a small but apt example of intelligence evolving to cope with a survival instinct less than that of most animals. If thought and intelligence didn't evolve, I'd have no way to post this.

Where is the "Watch as god makes a dolphin" documentary?


Wasn't that on last night? Damn I missed it. I bet it won't ever be on again. We are all SOL.

Wasn't that on last night? Damn I missed it. I bet it won't ever be on again. We are all SOL.

You are funny my friend. :)

I never stated they were the same and I never said they were both there. I said the phrase "other gods" can encompass both. And it can. I'm not saying it does, but you've been denying the fact that it can and I say you're wrong. I'm reading the words the same as you are. I'm saying those words leave room for something OTHER THAN the view you keep stating, with some sort of cold hard certainty, that it can only mean one thing. I'm thinking the only person getting caught up in what they want it to mean is you.

Zues and Apollo were FALSE gods. They could also be described as OTHER gods, since men worshipped them thinking they were real. They weren't idols. They were "other gods". Idols were made in their image, so those were off-limits as well, hence the second part of the commandment. God didn't want men worshipping Zues and He didn't want them making golden statues of Zues either.

I'd argue that Zeus is just as real as Jehovah... more real perhaps, at least there are statues of Zeus. Jehovah is just some faceless concept.

You are deliberately (I think) missing the part that describes the OTHER entities in heaven. Specifically, it states that there ARE other heavenely entities.

We are also told there are 'false' ones. (Which would, I assume - be the ones that are NOT also in the heavens, surely).

I'd argue that Zeus is just as real as Jehovah... more real perhaps, at least there are statues of Zeus. Jehovah is just some faceless concept.

You are deliberately (I think) missing the part that describes the OTHER entities in heaven. Specifically, it states that there ARE other heavenely entities.

We are also told there are 'false' ones. (Which would, I assume - be the ones that are NOT also in the heavens, surely).

Well i won't argue with you about Zeus. In THIS discussion, since we are talking about Jehovah and His book though, Zeus does not exist. So he would be either a false god OR an other god or both.

I'm not deliberately missing the other entities. Of course there are. there's a whole host of angels up there. I suppose at some point man could have been worshipping them too. That would make sense actually but we don't know that for sure.

Well i won't argue with you about Zeus. In THIS discussion, since we are talking about Jehovah and His book though, Zeus does not exist. So he would be either a false god OR an other god or both.

I'm not deliberately missing the other entities. Of course there are. there's a whole host of angels up there. I suppose at some point man could have been worshipping them too. That would make sense actually but we don't know that for sure.

Again... I think your scriptural slip is showing...

Colossians 2:18 "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind".

We DO know for sure that angels were worshipped... but that is only part of it. If 'god' had meant 'just angels' - the text would have SAID don't worship the likenesses of angels. The fact that it IS NOT limited to angels, implies (strongly) that there are OTHER entities that dwell 'in the heavens'.

Just a thought on Religious folks and Evolution...
http://www.thechurchreport.com/content/view/487/0/

Again... I think your scriptural slip is showing...

Colossians 2:18 "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind".

We DO know for sure that angels were worshipped... but that is only part of it. If 'god' had meant 'just angels' - the text would have SAID don't worship the likenesses of angels. The fact that it IS NOT limited to angels, implies (strongly) that there are OTHER entities that dwell 'in the heavens'.

Ok, well if you're determined that those can only mean that, then ok.

Just a thought on Religious folks and Evolution...
http://www.thechurchreport.com/content/view/487/0/

There is a pleasantly modern view of things. I do take exception to a few things though. He says Religion and Science both search for truth. I don't think this is the case. Religion accepts old postulates as true. Science examines old postulates and attempts to support, destroy, or expand on them, which is a true search for truth.

Ok, well if you're determined that those can only mean that, then ok.

Is this a gracious acceptance of my point, or did I offend you with my proof that scripture supports the existence of angelologists?

There is a pleasantly modern view of things. I do take exception to a few things though. He says Religion and Science both search for truth. I don't think this is the case. Religion accepts old postulates as true.

Incorrect. Some religions and some religious people accept old postulates as true. Others are in a constant search for truth - constantly questioning and trying to find it, through a variety of means. Don't let your biases lead you into inaccurate stereotyping.

There is a pleasantly modern view of things. I do take exception to a few things though. He says Religion and Science both search for truth. I don't think this is the case. Religion accepts old postulates as true. Science examines old postulates and attempts to support, destroy, or expand on them, which is a true search for truth.
Well... a 'true' search for truth is certainly something that can be argued. However endlessly it can be argued about. I think Religion is a search for a different set of truths, that, I believe, is being argued by Pastor Shuller. A religion is basically the creation, from scratch, of postulates in seeking that truth. You say it's old postulates... but at the same time, religion is certainly an older 'science' than biology, chemistry, and physics. So is religion less of a search for truth than science? I wouldn't say that... to be fair, it can be seen today as a search for truth that has gone stale or into hiding.

I also wish to disagree with Balipo's comment. What is truth? Where is it found? Is it found through empirical study of our known world? Is it in the realm of ideas and logical deduction? Is it more than that, in a plane above our own?
Imagine you lost your keys somewhere in your house. Logically, you search somewhere in your kitchen because you always leave them there. Your friend, the empirical scientist, last saw you with them in the basement, so he searches there. Your roommate, the ideas guy, figures the best statistical chance would be the living room, and looks there. Finally, the religious man, prays and proceeds to search in your bedroom.
All men are searching for the truth, however the difference between them is how and where they search. Some search the known world, others the unknown. Some search by testing things, others by understanding things. No matter how or where they search the search is still the same, a search for the truth.
As for the thread title, I would say that concievably yes, religious people can accept evolution.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

I also wish to disagree with Balipo's comment. What is truth? Where is it found? Is it found through empirical study of our known world? Is it in the realm of ideas and logical deduction? Is it more than that, in a plane above our own?
Imagine you lost your keys somewhere in your house. Logically, you search somewhere in your kitchen because you always leave them there. Your friend, the empirical scientist, last saw you with them in the basement, so he searches there. Your roommate, the ideas guy, figures the best statistical chance would be the living room, and looks there. Finally, the religious man, prays and proceeds to search in your bedroom.
All men are searching for the truth, however the difference between them is how and where they search. Some search the known world, others the unknown. Some search by testing things, others by understanding things. No matter how or where they search the search is still the same, a search for the truth.
As for the thread title, I would say that concievably yes, religious people can accept evolution.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan
Wow... that pretty darn well put... kudos...

I also wish to disagree with Balipo's comment. What is truth? Where is it found? Is it found through empirical study of our known world? Is it in the realm of ideas and logical deduction? Is it more than that, in a plane above our own?
Imagine you lost your keys somewhere in your house. Logically, you search somewhere in your kitchen because you always leave them there. Your friend, the empirical scientist, last saw you with them in the basement, so he searches there. Your roommate, the ideas guy, figures the best statistical chance would be the living room, and looks there. Finally, the religious man, prays and proceeds to search in your bedroom.
All men are searching for the truth, however the difference between them is how and where they search. Some search the known world, others the unknown. Some search by testing things, others by understanding things. No matter how or where they search the search is still the same, a search for the truth.
As for the thread title, I would say that concievably yes, religious people can accept evolution.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan
A ludicrious example. The religious man praying for lost keys to be found is not seeking any sort of religious truth. The seeker after religious truth seeks inward, not outward.

I also wish to disagree with Balipo's comment. What is truth? Where is it found? Is it found through empirical study of our known world? Is it in the realm of ideas and logical deduction? Is it more than that, in a plane above our own?
Imagine you lost your keys somewhere in your house. Logically, you search somewhere in your kitchen because you always leave them there. Your friend, the empirical scientist, last saw you with them in the basement, so he searches there. Your roommate, the ideas guy, figures the best statistical chance would be the living room, and looks there. Finally, the religious man, prays and proceeds to search in your bedroom.
All men are searching for the truth, however the difference between them is how and where they search. Some search the known world, others the unknown. Some search by testing things, others by understanding things. No matter how or where they search the search is still the same, a search for the truth.
As for the thread title, I would say that concievably yes, religious people can accept evolution.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

But only ONE of those people is pursuing something that is ACTUALLY 'true', no? Two of the people are wasting their efforts - and anyone they encourage to help them look, is also being led a merry dance.

I also wish to disagree with Balipo's comment. What is truth? Where is it found? Is it found through empirical study of our known world? Is it in the realm of ideas and logical deduction? Is it more than that, in a plane above our own?
Imagine you lost your keys somewhere in your house. Logically, you search somewhere in your kitchen because you always leave them there. Your friend, the empirical scientist, last saw you with them in the basement, so he searches there. Your roommate, the ideas guy, figures the best statistical chance would be the living room, and looks there. Finally, the religious man, prays and proceeds to search in your bedroom.
All men are searching for the truth, however the difference between them is how and where they search. Some search the known world, others the unknown. Some search by testing things, others by understanding things. No matter how or where they search the search is still the same, a search for the truth.
As for the thread title, I would say that concievably yes, religious people can accept evolution.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan


Theres a religious guy in my bedroom? Hope he doesnt find my porn.

A ludicrious example. The religious man praying for lost keys to be found is not seeking any sort of religious truth. The seeker after religious truth seeks inward, not outward.
Hardly ludicrious, science or religion attempts to answer the almighty "Why?" of this world... and different people of differing ideas will find either one or the other to explain it... or perhaps even the combination of the different methods. It's hardly a ludicrous example if you place the target as the same... I think in this case it would be an explanation of human existance... probably, maybe, etc.

Not quite, you see, they all are searching in different places in different manners, yet they all are searching for the same thing. Given long enough they will all find it, though perhaps at different speeds. The man in the kitchen will eventually reach the keys if they are in the bathroom, as would the man upstairs, or in the living room, or in the basement. It is a matter of how long it takes and how accurate the guess is.

And that is a completely inaccurate statement. Any religious person who simply sits down and says "Good, I am satisfied with my life and religion. No more searching, no more effort." should be slapped upside the head, pardon my bluntness. A religious person still searches, though not in the way many others would. I would completely disagree with your statement. All search in their own ways.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

Hardly ludicrious, science or religion attempts to answer the almighty "Why?" of this world... and different people of differing ideas will find either one or the other to explain it... or perhaps even the combination of the different methods. It's hardly a ludicrous example if you place the target as the same... I think in this case it would be an explanation of human existance... probably, maybe, etc.
Religion is not about explaning the world, it is about relating to it and participating in it.

Not quite, you see, they all are searching in different places in different manners, yet they all are searching for the same thing. Given long enough they will all find it, though perhaps at different speeds. The man in the kitchen will eventually reach the keys if they are in the bathroom, as would the man upstairs, or in the living room, or in the basement. It is a matter of how long it takes and how accurate the guess is.
And the man praying in the bedroom will eventually succeed through divination?

And that is a completely inaccurate statement. Any religious person who simply sits down and says "Good, I am satisfied with my life and religion. No more searching, no more effort." should be slapped upside the head, pardon my bluntness. A religious person still searches, though not in the way many others would. I would completely disagree with your statement. All search in their own ways.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan
Damned right, it's a "more effort" situation. Seeking inward for truths about oneself is a never-ending discovery.

Religion is not about explaning the world, it is about relating to it and participating in it.
Sounds like some sciences I've learned about... soft sciences such as political science... there's economics... heck matches physics quite well no? To relate and participate in the world, one must first understand the world, no?

Is this a gracious acceptance of my point, or did I offend you with my proof that scripture supports the existence of angelologists?

no, I'm not offended. I concede that we're not going to agree on this point. I have no doubt, though, that there were those that worshipped the angels.

A ludicrious example. The religious man praying for lost keys to be found is not seeking any sort of religious truth. The seeker after religious truth seeks inward, not outward.


Prayer doesn't cancel out truth, he also searched the bedroom.

To relate and participate in the world, one must first understand the world, no?
I would think that "being" is all that would be required, but you may have a point.

I don't know if people "participate" in physics in the same sense, but then I don't know physicists. I imagine they tend, as the rest of us do, to objectify it, to look at how it affects everything including them.

Prayer doesn't cancel out truth, he also searched the bedroom.
So the prayer was irrelevent, and his method was entirely hit and miss?

But only ONE of those people is pursuing something that is ACTUALLY 'true', no? Two of the people are wasting their efforts - and anyone they encourage to help them look, is also being led a merry dance.

actually there's nothing that says even ONE is pursuing the actual truth. The keys may be locked in the car and no one is searching there. They are all searching for the truth. And it could happen that each of them, in their own searches, follow clues and end up finding the keys in a common place, the pockets of the pants worn the night before. All the searches could conceivably turn up in the right place.

Theres a religious guy in my bedroom? Hope he doesnt find my porn.

:eek: :D

actually there's nothing that says even ONE is pursuing the actual truth. The keys may be locked in the car and no one is searching there. They are all searching for the truth. And it could happen that each of them, in their own searches, follow clues and end up finding the keys in a common place, the pockets of the pants worn the night before. All the searches could conceivably turn up in the right place.
I knew it... the guy from the bedroom is using divination.

So the prayer was irrelevent, and his method was entirely hit and miss?

His prayer was relevant to him, otherwise he wouldn't have wasted his time. Still, he searched as well. His method was equal to everyone else's method, he just prayed first.

His prayer was relevant to him, otherwise he wouldn't have wasted his time. Still, he searched as well. His method was equal to everyone else's method, he just prayed first.
Well, we could go with that explanation, but then it entirely invalidates Tyslan's story. The point of his story was that, "Some search the known world, others the unknown," but they all find truth in their own way. It suggests that the prayer was the method of search.

actually there's nothing that says even ONE is pursuing the actual truth. The keys may be locked in the car and no one is searching there. They are all searching for the truth. And it could happen that each of them, in their own searches, follow clues and end up finding the keys in a common place, the pockets of the pants worn the night before. All the searches could conceivably turn up in the right place.

I disagree (I can tell you're surprised...).

The man praying in the bedroom has been driven to the bedroom by his faith.. UNLESS the keys are there, his faith was misguided... and he ahs been following a lie.

The keys aren't in the car - because the example said they were in the house somewhere... and, by the same token, the keys are ONLY in the pants, in as much as they are in ONE of the rooms.

The man of faith is, unfortunately, screwed - if the keys don't turn out to be in the bedroom. If he was LIED to - then he can no longer (sensibly) put ANY faith in the guidance he received. If he finds the keys now, it is NOT because of his approach to the 'truth'... he just stumbled upon them.

I disagree (I can tell you're surprised...).

The man praying in the bedroom has been driven to the bedroom by his faith.. UNLESS the keys are there, his faith was misguided... and he ahs been following a lie.

The keys aren't in the car - because the example said they were in the house somewhere... and, by the same token, the keys are ONLY in the pants, in as much as they are in ONE of the rooms.

The man of faith is, unfortunately, screwed - if the keys don't turn out to be in the bedroom. If he was LIED to - then he can no longer (sensibly) put ANY faith in the guidance he received. If he finds the keys now, it is NOT because of his approach to the 'truth'... he just stumbled upon them.
Did you enjoy "Two Minute Mysteries" when you were young(er)? ;)

I disagree (I can tell you're surprised...).

The man praying in the bedroom has been driven to the bedroom by his faith.. UNLESS the keys are there, his faith was misguided... and he ahs been following a lie.

The keys aren't in the car - because the example said they were in the house somewhere... and, by the same token, the keys are ONLY in the pants, in as much as they are in ONE of the rooms.

The man of faith is, unfortunately, screwed - if the keys don't turn out to be in the bedroom. If he was LIED to - then he can no longer (sensibly) put ANY faith in the guidance he received. If he finds the keys now, it is NOT because of his approach to the 'truth'... he just stumbled upon them.

:eek:

Unless the keys are locked in the car inside the garage.
The keys being in the pants may turn out they are in only one room but all the different searches could give clues that lead each searcher to them.

Are you suggesting that the man of faith can never make a mistake? He can never be wrong? If that's your idea of faith, its little wonder you gave yours up. It doesn't mean he was lied to.

:eek:

Unless the keys are locked in the car inside the garage.
The keys being in the pants may turn out they are in only one room but all the different searches could give clues that lead each searcher to them.

Are you suggesting that the man of faith can never make a mistake? He can never be wrong? If that's your idea of faith, its little wonder you gave yours up. It doesn't mean he was lied to.

On the contrary - if he was 'directed' to the bedroom, and the keys were not there, I don't see any other solution.

Unless, you are implying that 'prayer' is mere pretense, and 'intervention' is nothing but putting 'god' as the name on coincidence.

Did you enjoy "Two Minute Mysteries" when you were young(er)? ;)

It was Ellen. Her sister is allergic, and her brother is too convincing... but we KNOW it's in her room somewhere....

So the prayer was irrelevent, and his method was entirely hit and miss?
This is only my guess... but I thinking he meant that prayer and whatever that resulted in was the basis on which the location of the search was chosen. o.o;;

This is only my guess... but I thinking he meant that prayer and whatever that resulted in was the basis on which the location of the search was chosen. o.o;;

Which means one of two things: either:

a) The prayer served NO purpose, other than to make the prayer feel better... in which case he picked the location HIMSELF, was wrong HIMSELF, and prayer is pointless...

or

b) The prayer petitioned a higer power, who directed the praying man to search the wrong room. Either god is not infallible, or he lies.

Which means one of two things: either:

a) The prayer served NO purpose, other than to make the prayer feel better... in which case he picked the location HIMSELF, was wrong HIMSELF, and prayer is pointless...

or

b) The prayer petitioned a higer power, who directed the praying man to search the wrong room. Either god is not infallible, or he lies.
Sounds like a dilly of a pickle, eh?
Indeedly doodly... *nod nods* @.@...

Though the religious belief that God influences evolution according to his plan.

Hey, that's what I always thought.

Which means one of two things: either:

a) The prayer served NO purpose, other than to make the prayer feel better... in which case he picked the location HIMSELF, was wrong HIMSELF, and prayer is pointless...

or

b) The prayer petitioned a higer power, who directed the praying man to search the wrong room. Either god is not infallible, or he lies.

or:

(c) He was actually already convinced that the keys were in the bedroom and was praying only as a pretense. Any guidance he received went unheeded, as he was doing it only out of habit, and already thought he knew the answer.

or:

(d) The guidance he received directed him to the garage. However, he misinterpreted said guidance - for any number of reasons - leading him to go the bedroom instead.

These things aren't as black and white as you might think.

Take a look at ANY part of the internal workings of a human and find something that does it's job that isn't a total wonder on how it works.

I had to have my appendix out, a couple of years back. Hardly a wonder of engineering, the modern human appendix. In fact it was a right pain. Literally. And one of the few single things I've nearly died of, I think.

Of course, the Designer made the appendix (not) work the way it did for some ulterior motive, knowing that we'd eventually develop fairly survivable surgical remedies to its deadly effects... 'Sobvious, right?

or:

(c) He was actually already convinced that the keys were in the bedroom and was praying only as a pretense. Any guidance he received went unheeded, as he was doing it only out of habit, and already thought he knew the answer.

or:

(d) The guidance he received directed him to the garage. However, he misinterpreted said guidance - for any number of reasons - leading him to go the bedroom instead.

These things aren't as black and white as you might think.
Well, then it wasn't guidance, it didn't guide.

Well... a 'true' search for truth is certainly something that can be argued. However endlessly it can be argued about. I think Religion is a search for a different set of truths, that, I believe, is being argued by Pastor Shuller.

I have to disagree. If religion searched for truth, it wouldn;t rely on old tomes and faith to explain everything. Religion came from man's fear of the unknown, there is now enough known that religion is unnecessary to explain things.

A religion is basically the creation, from scratch, of postulates in seeking that truth. You say it's old postulates... but at the same time, religion is certainly an older 'science' than biology, chemistry, and physics. So is religion less of a search for truth than science? I wouldn't say that... to be fair, it can be seen today as a search for truth that has gone stale or into hiding.

Religion is not a science. Theology, the study of religion, is a science.

or:

(c) He was actually already convinced that the keys were in the bedroom and was praying only as a pretense. Any guidance he received went unheeded, as he was doing it only out of habit, and already thought he knew the answer.

or:

(d) The guidance he received directed him to the garage. However, he misinterpreted said guidance - for any number of reasons - leading him to go the bedroom instead.

These things aren't as black and white as you might think.

See, I don't see these as being that far from the black and white, still... in the first example, the praying is still pretense, and no result is obtained - and in the second example the guidance is somehow incomprehensible enough that the will of God cannot be known.

I have to disagree. If religion searched for truth, it wouldn;t rely on old tomes and faith to explain everything. Religion came from man's fear of the unknown, there is now enough known that religion is unnecessary to explain things. Which is why religion does not attempt to explain that which has already been explained (I'm not referring to "lunatic fringe groups" here). Science and religion operate in completely different sectors. They should not seek to contradict each other.

So what exactly is the argument? Evolution (and the Big Bang) have been proven to be factual. Why deny what has been seen?


Really? Who's seen it? :p

In answer to your heading as to whether or not religious people (any religion in particular?) believe in evolution, the answer is: some do and some don't.

Religion is not a science. Theology, the study of religion, is a science.

Religion is NOT a science, true. Not to say that science itself cannot be considered a religion, insofar as religion isn't as exact as a "science" attempts to be. Rather, religion is a system of belief.
Theology on the other hand is not a science either. Theology is the study of or search for God. It's like studying religion from the inside out. As compared to religious studies which study religions from the outside in. Very very big difference. Religious studies attempt to take an unbiased and objective look at a religion and the way it works, essentially it becomes a study of a culture and history.

I have to disagree. If religion searched for truth, it wouldn;t rely on old tomes and faith to explain everything. Religion came from man's fear of the unknown, there is now enough known that religion is unnecessary to explain things.
The truths it searches for, and finds, are not the literal interpretation of the old texts, but inner knowledge and understanding of oneself.

Religion is not a science. Theology, the study of religion, is a science.
Religion is a philosophy. As far as I know, theology is not a science, it is a study, unless it purports to make predictions about future findings in the old texts and test for them.

Well, then it wasn't guidance, it didn't guide.

Wait, so if you ask me how to get to the store, and I give you perfect directions, but you ignore them and take a different route anyways, I didn't give you directions at all?

Wait, so if you ask me how to get to the store, and I give you perfect directions, but you ignore them and take a different route anyways, I didn't give you directions at all?
That's not the same, as the directions, if perfect, require no interpretation. It also varies in that communication of the direction was accomplished (the directions, although ignored, were understood).

Guidance is not giving directions; guidance would rather require that some guiding took place to ensure the destination was reached. A secretary could direct someone to the desk of another individual in the office while staying at her desk, or she could get up and guide him to the desk.

Really? Who's seen it? :p

Okay no one saw "THE" Big Bang, because there was only one. But there were reproductions made under experimental conditions that were observed.



In answer to your heading as to whether or not religious people (any religion in particular?) believe in evolution, the answer is: some do and some don't.


I see that. I didn't know if there was a unifying stance. Apparently not. My question has apparently be answered.

That's not the same, as the directions, if perfect, require no interpretation.

Not true. I tell you to turn left by the large tree. What is large to me might not be large to you, but I still gave you perfect directions.

It also varies in that communication of the direction was accomplished (the directions, although ignored, were understood).

Actually, in the case that you quoted, the directions were given and ignored. It would be like you saying, "Hey, give me directions to the store," but already having the route you will take planned out in your mind. Thus, you ask for directions, but don't really listen as I give them. It doesn't change the fact that I actually did give them.

Guidance is not giving directions;

It can be.

guidance would rather require that some guiding took place to ensure the destination was reached.

The definition of the word requires no such thing. You may personally tack that addition on, but it is not necessary. If I give you directions to get somewhere, I have done all I need to in order to ensure that the destination is reached. It is up to you from there.

By your definition, a teacher doesn't guide a student in their learning, because she doesn't hold their hand throughout the whole process. If she makes them take a test on their own, without her help, then she isn't guiding their learning process.

Not true. I tell you to turn left by the large tree. What is large to me might not be large to you, but I still gave you perfect directions.
"Large tree" would imply there is one tree larger than the others, in which case it would be clear which was the "large tree". If it is not obvious which is the "large tree", then the directions are imperfect.

Actually, in the case that you quoted, the directions were given and ignored. It would be like you saying, "Hey, give me directions to the store," but already having the route you will take planned out in your mind. Thus, you ask for directions, but don't really listen as I give them. It doesn't change the fact that I actually did give them.
I'm not sure what you're referring to: the only example I gave was the one about the secretary and the desk.

It can be.

The definition of the word requires no such thing. You may personally tack that addition on, but it is not necessary. If I give you directions to get somewhere, I have done all I need to in order to ensure that the destination is reached. It is up to you from there.

By your definition, a teacher doesn't guide a student in their learning, because she doesn't hold their hand throughout the whole process. If she makes them take a test on their own, without her help, then she isn't guiding their learning process.
And according to your definition, if I instruct someone how to get to Bakersfield and they never get there, I've still managed to "guide" them there. Go me!

The teacher guides the student by taking them step by step through the learning process, rather than giving them the answer directly.

I'm not sure what you're referring to: the only example I gave was the one about the secretary and the desk.

I was referring to the example you *quoted* - my example - the one about the guy praying.

And according to your definition, if I instruct someone how to get to Bakersfield and they never get there, I've still managed to "guide" them there. Go me!

That is by the dictionary definition, my dear:

1 : to act as a guide to : direct in a way or course
2 a : to direct, supervise, or influence usually to a particular end b : to superintend the training or instruction of
intransitive senses : to act or work as a guide

The teacher guides the student by taking them step by step through the learning process, rather than giving them the answer directly.

But at some point, she has to stop doing anything and let them go. The way you make it sound, she has to do *everything* to have provided guidance.

That is by the dictionary definition, my dear:
Indeed. "To act as a guide to"... well, if they don't get to anywhere, then you weren't acting as a guide to anything.

Same with the teacher's job, it requires them reaching an end.

But at some point, she has to stop doing anything and let them go. The way you make it sound, she has to do *everything* to have provided guidance.
No, she has to guide learning, that's what her job entails.

Indeed. "To act as a guide to"... well, if they don't get to anywhere, then you weren't acting as a guide to anything.

Darling, there are two definitions there. Try reading. The definition you are using is one possible definition, but not the only one. Thus, your statement that simply directing someone is not guidance is incorrect, as the definition is very clear that it is correct.

I'll quote it again, just to make sure:

[quote]to direct, supervise, or influence usually to a particular end[/uo]

Look, direct is even part of the definition.

Darling, there are two definitions there. Try reading. The definition you are using is one possible definition, but not the only one. Thus, your statement that simply directing someone is not guidance is incorrect, as the definition is very clear that it is correct.

I'll quote it again, just to make sure:

to direct, supervise, or influence usually to a particular end[/uo]

Look, direct is even part of the definition.
And, as I said, it requires them reaching an end.

And, as I said, it requires them reaching an end.

First off, it says "usually", which means that it doesn't actually require it. Again, your English skills are a bit off today.

Secondly, even if it did require it, in my example, I reached my end by giving you directions. You asked for directions, I gave them. That was me reaching the end to which I was giving guidance.

First off, it says "usually", which means that it doesn't actually require it. Again, your English skills are a bit off today.

Secondly, even if it did require it, in my example, I reached my end by giving you directions. You asked for directions, I gave them. That was me reaching the end to which I was giving guidance.
Haha. Well, that's a novel interpretation.

I had to have my appendix out, a couple of years back. Hardly a wonder of engineering, the modern human appendix. In fact it was a right pain. Literally. And one of the few single things I've nearly died of, I think.

Of course, the Designer made the appendix (not) work the way it did for some ulterior motive, knowing that we'd eventually develop fairly survivable surgical remedies to its deadly effects... 'Sobvious, right?

Let's point this out...if their were an "intelligent designer" why do men have nipples? Why do we have a spleen? Or an appendix? Or a gall bladder? Or a tail bone?

Makes one wonder how intelligent a designer could be to give us useless organs.