This should be good
- Thread starter rollcall2daball
- Start date
if you believe in Darwinian evolution, take a little time and study the mechanism which causes blood to clot. Natural selection all the way down.
If you "believe" that's really all that matters.
This post was edited on 2/4 3:48 PM by EZTiger1997
This post was edited on 2/4 3:48 PM by EZTiger1997
Over thousands of years we evolved from monkeys, that evolved from ______, that came from_______. OK I get that. So somewhere there are hundreds of thousands of older human skeletons that are buried everywhere that we can look at to see this long process as they evolved. We can find thousands of prehistoric Dinosaur skeletons and fossils from thousands of years ago, right?
Hey, feel free to live how you want, but "As for me and my house, We will serve the Lord" The one and only true way this ride will not end.
In no time at all we will all be buried in the dirt. No matter what kind of health care the government pushes on us or how we take care of ourselves. No matter what science proves, you will die, be buried under ground like your father and his brother, his father, and his father before him, and all his brothers. Your wife/girlfriend, kids, your sister... no they won't beat the system either. Everyone of them will take a last breath here and be stuck in the ground and covered with dirt.
So will you.
No one has ever found a scientific way of stopping this. When you do, talk and it may matter.
Until then, today or tomorrow, whenever that drunk hits you, or a microscopic place in one of the miles of blood vessels you have breaks, and you breathe your last breath it will not matter what some scientist say we evolved from. That brilliant breathtakingly wondrous scientist will take his last breath and be buried right beside you too.
Walk through a grave yard people. Look at the ground. Those coffins are filled with young bucks who were smarter than everyone else at the time and knew it all also. They are now silent covered in dirt.
I marvel at the brilliant discoveries of science!
By the way........... Darwin is dead
Maybe he should have thought more about where he was going instead of where we had been.
Maybe we should also...just sayin
.
This post was edited on 2/4 4:10 PM by idohvac2
Hey, feel free to live how you want, but "As for me and my house, We will serve the Lord" The one and only true way this ride will not end.
In no time at all we will all be buried in the dirt. No matter what kind of health care the government pushes on us or how we take care of ourselves. No matter what science proves, you will die, be buried under ground like your father and his brother, his father, and his father before him, and all his brothers. Your wife/girlfriend, kids, your sister... no they won't beat the system either. Everyone of them will take a last breath here and be stuck in the ground and covered with dirt.
So will you.
No one has ever found a scientific way of stopping this. When you do, talk and it may matter.
Until then, today or tomorrow, whenever that drunk hits you, or a microscopic place in one of the miles of blood vessels you have breaks, and you breathe your last breath it will not matter what some scientist say we evolved from. That brilliant breathtakingly wondrous scientist will take his last breath and be buried right beside you too.
Walk through a grave yard people. Look at the ground. Those coffins are filled with young bucks who were smarter than everyone else at the time and knew it all also. They are now silent covered in dirt.
I marvel at the brilliant discoveries of science!
By the way........... Darwin is dead
Maybe he should have thought more about where he was going instead of where we had been.
Maybe we should also...just sayin
.
This post was edited on 2/4 4:10 PM by idohvac2
bravo....during the week you install hvac and on Sundays you preach from the pulpit. Not bad. regards to you.
Thanks but I sold my HVAC company 6 years ago. Basically retired at 32 years old and dabble in all kinds of things now. Hence the Idohvac2. That was my screen name for years as HVAC was only part of what I did. I had other businesses too(2)
I have been blessed and want to say thank you from where it came
This post was edited on 2/4 4:20 PM by idohvac2
I don't enjoy the endless debate, from a Christian perspective, it's far too easy to win. I don't believe in evolution because it's a fact, how exactly do you "believe" in a fact? I believe Clemson will win the basketball game tonight, I know there is a basketball game tonight...see the difference.
It is hilarious and very sad at the same time that anyone could be stupid enough to believe that the fact of evolution somehow proves that God doesn't exist, all while thinking that they're so smart because they only believe in what science can prove. It is also equally humorous and sad that Christians could be stupid enough to think that scientific facts aren't true. Yes, there are some stupid people on both sides of the argument, you got me there...
So what if evolution exists? Christianity, I can't speak for other religions because I don't know enough about them, but Christianity isn't the story of how humans were created, it's the story of how everything was created. And going a step further, the Bible isn't meant to answer all of life's questions anyway. Some questions we simply aren't meant to know the answers to, at least not in this life. So let's say humans evolved from monkeys, or whatever, where did they come from? Where did the things before them come from? Where did the things before them come from, and so on...
This is the answer, and it's really quite simple...Christians and other religious people really are to blame because they have been arguing over the wrong question with non-believers for centuries. The age old argument is how did we get here, or what is the meaning of life? Science has one answer and religion has another one, but that's not the issue. Science can indeed answer a lot of the how questions, some it can't, but that's OK. The "how's" aren't the important questions...it's the "why's" that are important and those are the questions that Christianity answers.
Name any scientific fact, take gravity for instance. You can tell me all about how gravity works, but can you tell me why? No, you certainly cannot, not without using God in your answer. Any argument you can possibly come up with came be undone with one simple word, why?
Sure, it might sound immature and childish, I know because I used to argue on the side of non-belief, and if anyone had ever rebuffed all of my scientific facts with a single word response, why, I would have been enfuriated after a few times of that, but that's all it takes. Why? Furthermore, I would tell you and Jesus would agree with me, we all need to think more like children anyway.
It is hilarious and very sad at the same time that anyone could be stupid enough to believe that the fact of evolution somehow proves that God doesn't exist, all while thinking that they're so smart because they only believe in what science can prove. It is also equally humorous and sad that Christians could be stupid enough to think that scientific facts aren't true. Yes, there are some stupid people on both sides of the argument, you got me there...
So what if evolution exists? Christianity, I can't speak for other religions because I don't know enough about them, but Christianity isn't the story of how humans were created, it's the story of how everything was created. And going a step further, the Bible isn't meant to answer all of life's questions anyway. Some questions we simply aren't meant to know the answers to, at least not in this life. So let's say humans evolved from monkeys, or whatever, where did they come from? Where did the things before them come from? Where did the things before them come from, and so on...
This is the answer, and it's really quite simple...Christians and other religious people really are to blame because they have been arguing over the wrong question with non-believers for centuries. The age old argument is how did we get here, or what is the meaning of life? Science has one answer and religion has another one, but that's not the issue. Science can indeed answer a lot of the how questions, some it can't, but that's OK. The "how's" aren't the important questions...it's the "why's" that are important and those are the questions that Christianity answers.
Name any scientific fact, take gravity for instance. You can tell me all about how gravity works, but can you tell me why? No, you certainly cannot, not without using God in your answer. Any argument you can possibly come up with came be undone with one simple word, why?
Sure, it might sound immature and childish, I know because I used to argue on the side of non-belief, and if anyone had ever rebuffed all of my scientific facts with a single word response, why, I would have been enfuriated after a few times of that, but that's all it takes. Why? Furthermore, I would tell you and Jesus would agree with me, we all need to think more like children anyway.
Why can't science and religion coexist? I want to learn more about the history of the earth and how we came to be scientifically but I am also a Christian. Doesn't have to be one or the other.
Yes people die but what does that have to do with scientists doing research about how the earth was formed?
As for the aspect of creation I base my life, present, but more importantly future, on 4 words - "In the beginning God". That's all I need to know although His word tells me many, many more things but they all emanate from Gen. 1:1.
It takes more faith than I can imagine to believe that everything came from nothing and life came from non-life.
I would love to get Darwin's take on the debate now.
It takes more faith than I can imagine to believe that everything came from nothing and life came from non-life.
I would love to get Darwin's take on the debate now.
***For those reading, this response is to Trading Tiger as a fellow Christian. I am not here to get into a debate with nonbelievers. I already know your stance, and I respect that, and you know mine as a Christian.***
I understand what you're trying to convey, but with all due respect the Bible is clear in that God created man. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, any theory that people evolved from a monkey or any other means clearly goes against a fundamental principle of Christianity. God created man. God did not create a monkey which then evolved into a man. It's that simple if you are a Christian. And, yes, this absolutely matters as a Christian. [This also does not mean that science cannot co-exist with Christianity, but it cannot when it comes to how man was created if you are of the viewpoint that man evolved from a monkey or some other form other than God.]
Also, the Bible is not a story about "how everything was created." In part, yes. But the main premise of the Bible and Christianity is that Jesus Christ, the son of God, is the only way we can be saved and enter the kingdom of heaven. Specifically, God, the creator of all (which addresses "how everything was created"), sent his son, Jesus Christ, to pay for our sins, and through Jesus' death and resurrection we can be saved and spend eternity in heaven with God. As Romans 10:9 says, "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." That's what the Bible is about - salvation through Jesus - and that's all that really matters in the end.
This post was edited on 2/4 5:12 PM by Mr. Clemson
This post was edited on 2/4 5:15 PM by Mr. Clemson
Yes, I agree. I do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys, that is not at all what I meant when I said that evolution is a fact. Human evolution is not a fact, but the process of evolution is. I was simply trying to explain it in a way that a person who did believe in human evolution could understand, but you can't use the Bible in an argument with a non-believer because they don't believe what the Bible says anyway. That would be like trying to define a word while using that word in the definition, it doesn't work. In order to get a point across, sometimes you must concede a point to gain two or three yourself.
Honestly, I really don't have a lot of Biblical knowledge, I'm a relatively new Christian and a lot of my current beliefs might not exactly jive with what the Bible says. The minor details are of zero importance to me, I have the jist of things and that's really all that matters. You know the saying, "I learned everything I need to know in kindergarten"...well, as far as Christianity is concerned, I learned all I need to know in Sunday school. Does that mean I learned everything? Absolutely not, but I don't need to know everything. I don't have to be a Biblical expert to know that Jesus is the Messiah and my Savior. In fact, it was the Biblical experts of the time who crucified Jesus. You'll certainly understand where I'm coming from if I told you that the last thing I want to be is a Biblical expert. I would much rather be considered a Jesus expert, and Jesus is in my heart, not in my brain.
The details to some people are important though, to them, if one little thing in the Bible isn't 100% true, then they can't trust anything the Bible says. That's just not how I think.
Mr. Clemson, excellent post! Too often people want to use science only to explain one or the other, and lose the most important element. Faith. I know without any hesitation that God created everything, and made man from the dust of the earth. Can I prove it? No, but that's what faith is.
I understand you now, and believing in Jesus as your savior is all that really matters!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
For Broncosrb26
God has always existed. He is transcendent and can not be defined or understood in our finite terms or minds. That's why He said of Himself, "I AM". He is Self Existent, beyond our comprehension.
God has always existed. He is transcendent and can not be defined or understood in our finite terms or minds. That's why He said of Himself, "I AM". He is Self Existent, beyond our comprehension.
I agree that you don't "believe" in facts; you accept them, change your world-view if necessary and move on. But after that, your logic is fallacious.
First, let me say "why" is not a very compelling question in the cosmos. There does not have to be a reason for everything and the universe doesn't care one way or another whether we like it. Do not confuse reason with cause.
But as for your god being that primal cause, you offer no argument. In logic it is the "argument from ignorance" which means, "We don't know; therefore, it must be god." But as unfulfilling as that is by itself, you really mean, "We don't know; therefore, it must be MY god" which is even sillier given all the thousands of possible gods that still exist or have existed in the mind of men.
The only logical conclusion to "we don't know" is "therefore, we don't know." But fortunately for mankind, there have been and still are enough people who do not blindly think the answer is in a Bronze Age book written by scientifically ignorant men who though their special god did them a favor by promising them some of the least productive real estate in the habitable portion of the earth. These people who reject the "we already know" premise say, "we don't know but we're working on it."
Your appeal is to a "god of the gaps." He used to occupy a far greater territory than he does now because volumes of things from storms to earthquakes that were once attributed to his whims have been explained- gap after gap he used to occupy has been filled with knowledge. And let's not forget modern science is still in its infancy- thinking in terms of what we know right now is very short-sighted.
First, let me say "why" is not a very compelling question in the cosmos. There does not have to be a reason for everything and the universe doesn't care one way or another whether we like it. Do not confuse reason with cause.
But as for your god being that primal cause, you offer no argument. In logic it is the "argument from ignorance" which means, "We don't know; therefore, it must be god." But as unfulfilling as that is by itself, you really mean, "We don't know; therefore, it must be MY god" which is even sillier given all the thousands of possible gods that still exist or have existed in the mind of men.
The only logical conclusion to "we don't know" is "therefore, we don't know." But fortunately for mankind, there have been and still are enough people who do not blindly think the answer is in a Bronze Age book written by scientifically ignorant men who though their special god did them a favor by promising them some of the least productive real estate in the habitable portion of the earth. These people who reject the "we already know" premise say, "we don't know but we're working on it."
Your appeal is to a "god of the gaps." He used to occupy a far greater territory than he does now because volumes of things from storms to earthquakes that were once attributed to his whims have been explained- gap after gap he used to occupy has been filled with knowledge. And let's not forget modern science is still in its infancy- thinking in terms of what we know right now is very short-sighted.
Hi rjohn19. I really appreciate your appeal to logic, because it is completely REASONable to conclude that this universe did not come into existence on it's own accord. I love the formal study of logic. I am a Christian, and I believe that God created the Earth and all in it (including man without evolutionary guidance). When I look at our world, the universe, and all in it, I am convinced that it could only come about by intentional design.
I am geek (Math major), and I am fascinated when I watch shows on the Science Channel and the scenarios they discuss. They discuss ad nauseum all the possibilities for the universe not to exist exactly like it does, and attribute it to chance, although, mathematically, we would classify those probabilities as zero. I find it captivating to hear them marvel over such improbabilities playing out.
At the end of the day, however, I don't fault anyone for not believing in God because the Bible clearly teaches that our discovery of God (the God of Abraham) is not through our own devices, but through Him making us believers in Him.
This is a beautiful paragraph sir. Excuse me if I only highlight the part I did. You now "know" that Storms that were attributed to God and "his whims" are now explained in science now.
Very next sentence "...thinking in terms of what we know right now is very short-sighted." Couldn't agree with you more sir! At one time we "knew" the world was flat. We "knew" the sun orbited around the Earth. What will we know in the future?
One could argue with science and all of our "new" discoveries, that when we finally scientifically figure it "ALL" out, we will scientifically prove there has to be a God.
A great philosopher once said that once scientist figure out all of the mysteries of it all, and get to the mountaintop of understanding... that when they arrive there will be a group of Theologian's there to welcome them with open arms.
I would love to see you there myself!
Seriously, I know these topics bring debate, but I honestly love the whole TI family here, and hope we can all learn from each other...
This is an excellent post. I would also add that the God of the Bible clearly states in Genesis that His creation was "good" and that death, corruption and decay entered this world as a result of sin. Before sin, there was no death nor decay in the world. Therefor, God cannot be credited with creating man nor any other creature through the devices of evolutionary theory. The reason Jesus had to come into the world to save it, is because sin had corrupted God's perfect creation. Those that try to say that Christianity and evolution theory can co-exist do not understand the logical fallacy with this thinking. Even the atheist know this. I would suggest that any Christian who wants to understand that science and Creationism are in perfect harmony, should visit www.answersingenesis.org . The site is even referenced in the OP's link. BTW. The claims in the article linked above have been refuted by a PhD geneticist. Just because the article gives no credence to the refutation, doesn't mean the refutation is incorrect. When one looks at the history of science, most of the early major players made their discoveries based on a Creationist world view that God created the universe and everything in it, and that it was created with order, and not by chaos. There are still hundreds of scientist who maintain this view. Don't let yourselves be bullied by people making wild claims, but also try to remain calm and measured in your response; as Mr. Clemson has done here. I have been guilty of getting very loud and obnoxious at times, and it is wrong.
I love those Science/History/Discovery channel shows too, I especially like Ancient Aliens.
But anyway, I was watching one of those shows and they stated that if the force of gravity was just 0.00000000000001 m/s^2 different, that the world as we know it wouldn't exist. (that wasn't the exact number, it was probably even smaller than that, it was one of those numbers that they have to use an exponent of 10 to write or it would be way too long)
If gravity was just a fraction of a fraction of a fraction stronger, all the matter in the universe would clump together. If it was just a fraction of a...weaker, it would not be strong enough and all the matter would just fly in different directions.
The more I learn, the easier it is for me to see that God must exist, not the opposite. I agree with the poster who said that one day, science will prove God's existence rather than disprove it.
No, my logic is not flawed at all. You erroneously assume that I am using a god to fill in the blanks and to answer the questions that I don't yet know the answers. I don't believe in God because of all the things I don't know, I believe in God because of all the things I do know.
Sorry for the absence- I watched the debate on-line. And shame on those of you who didn't.
Again, where to begin? You're proferring the same arguments I've already explained do not impress me is the least.
I know you don't want to die. I know you don't want to be forever separated from loved ones who have died. I know you want to think someone is watching over you. There is no evidence, regardless of how comforting these assumptions are, for any of it save for one book.
Let me point out, as Sam Harris put it, there are many religions in the world and they all can't be true. No one religion has a majority so the logical default position just based on the Vegas odds ought to be that you got it wrong and are going to hell.
You believe because it is a comfort, not by dint of evidence- all of which points the other direction. The evil and suffering in the world deny a benevolent all-powerful god. The book itself is so self-contradictory it cannot possibly be the word of such a god.
It would be a feat of extraordinary dexterity to extract an eye for an eye while not looking because you have turned the other cheek. You cannot cherish and look after the poor as Jesus demanded and lay down rules for just how badly you can maim your slaves before running afoul of your god's laws.
And it's not just the philosophical contradictions but also the matter-of-fact problems that dictate the bible was a human construct. Look at Genesis and report back to me on the order of creation; there are conflicting reports. Read the Gospels and tell me how many generations between Jesus and David (and since the lineage was traced through Joseph, tell me why it matters as he was not a blood relative) and tell me what happened at the tomb and who was there.
It can't all be true so tell my by what divine warrant you are given the right to cherry-pick the bits that fit your own personal view and disregard the rest. Of course I assume none of you eats pork or shellfish nor would you so much as consider wearing an outfit that mixed fabrics of any kind.
Everything you know of your specific god comes from one book that is tragically flawed. Everything I know comes from many books, some of which might be flawed but as I said in my original post- we're working on it.
Again, where to begin? You're proferring the same arguments I've already explained do not impress me is the least.
I know you don't want to die. I know you don't want to be forever separated from loved ones who have died. I know you want to think someone is watching over you. There is no evidence, regardless of how comforting these assumptions are, for any of it save for one book.
Let me point out, as Sam Harris put it, there are many religions in the world and they all can't be true. No one religion has a majority so the logical default position just based on the Vegas odds ought to be that you got it wrong and are going to hell.
You believe because it is a comfort, not by dint of evidence- all of which points the other direction. The evil and suffering in the world deny a benevolent all-powerful god. The book itself is so self-contradictory it cannot possibly be the word of such a god.
It would be a feat of extraordinary dexterity to extract an eye for an eye while not looking because you have turned the other cheek. You cannot cherish and look after the poor as Jesus demanded and lay down rules for just how badly you can maim your slaves before running afoul of your god's laws.
And it's not just the philosophical contradictions but also the matter-of-fact problems that dictate the bible was a human construct. Look at Genesis and report back to me on the order of creation; there are conflicting reports. Read the Gospels and tell me how many generations between Jesus and David (and since the lineage was traced through Joseph, tell me why it matters as he was not a blood relative) and tell me what happened at the tomb and who was there.
It can't all be true so tell my by what divine warrant you are given the right to cherry-pick the bits that fit your own personal view and disregard the rest. Of course I assume none of you eats pork or shellfish nor would you so much as consider wearing an outfit that mixed fabrics of any kind.
Everything you know of your specific god comes from one book that is tragically flawed. Everything I know comes from many books, some of which might be flawed but as I said in my original post- we're working on it.
Just to clarify the statistical argument. The chances that another planet with nearly the exact same environmental conditions doesn't exist in the universe is infinitesimal. More than likely, there are thousands if not millions) of life-sustaining planets out there So while it's accurate that the chances of this particular planet spawning the proper conditions to create and sustain life as we know it were very slim, it's not at all when looking at the macro scale.
So here is a question I have for the creationist crowd. If God created us in his own image, and we as humans are generally logical and seekers of answers, then why would he create so much scientific evidence that supports a world being millions of years old but have people write a book saying it is only 6000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs? Is he that much of a practical joker that he would create a world that begged us as humans to learn, discover and research its many wonders through science, only to pull the rug out from under us and say "gotcha - I made those dinosaur bones appear to be 65 millions years old just to mess with you." That doesn't make sense to me.
I do believe science and religion can coexist, but I don't understand how anyone can believe the bible should be interpreted word for word. Isn't it possible that god created man THROUGH the evolutionary process? Seems like a logical way to go about things rather than balling up a lump of clay and blowing on it.
I do believe science and religion can coexist, but I don't understand how anyone can believe the bible should be interpreted word for word. Isn't it possible that god created man THROUGH the evolutionary process? Seems like a logical way to go about things rather than balling up a lump of clay and blowing on it.
Your comments suggest that you have very little understanding of what most Christians believe... and you seem to confuse them with the Israelites. Interesting mix up, I guess, as is your blending of old and new testaments.
But most interesting to me is your suggestion that reading many books legitimizes your views. Seems more that you are just spreading your bets at some roulette wheel of beliefs. But isn't this book one of the most read, quoted, argued, and studied by any measure? Surely that says something of its value. Or why would it have not been dismissed by now? Because of the element of faith, which you discount, but which is so very critical to this debate.
But most interesting to me is your suggestion that reading many books legitimizes your views. Seems more that you are just spreading your bets at some roulette wheel of beliefs. But isn't this book one of the most read, quoted, argued, and studied by any measure? Surely that says something of its value. Or why would it have not been dismissed by now? Because of the element of faith, which you discount, but which is so very critical to this debate.
Sam Harris. Ha! I should have figured. I read one of his books and was substantially unimpressed by his position. I feel sorry for that guy.
The point of my statements are not to impress you. I simply presented my affinity for the formal study of logic, and that through that endeavor, I can come to a reasonable conclusion that in fact, there is a God. You may claim the same affinity for logic, however, you arrive at a different conclusion.
I think Ken Ham addressed this well in the debate. We look at the same evidence, but come to a different conclusion. The differences lie in the presuppositions.
Fear of death has nothing to do with my faith. At the moment, my faith doesn't temper the prospects of death. Death can't be fun regardless of world view.
I don't believe because it is a comfort or because I am compelled through fear. A faithless life certainly seems more simple and convenient.
I believe because I am convinced.
Everything I know comes from many books as well...including math and science books, not just the Bible. My atheistic reading isn't limited to Sam Harris either. I've read takes from several avid atheists.
As an aside, I do think it's funny that Sam Harris is working diligently to find the source of "belief" in the human mind/psyche. He won't find it.
I am very familiar with the biblical "contradictions" you attempt to present. Men long before you and I (and men also in the present) wrestled with many of these interpretive challenges and provide adequate and acceptable responses. It's not hard to find them.
Regurgitating the same atheistic challenges to Christianity isn't very original, but you have this kind-of condescending overtone that's cute. Are you a UNC fan?
This post was edited on 2/4 10:50 PM by Tigerus Maximus
The point of my statements are not to impress you. I simply presented my affinity for the formal study of logic, and that through that endeavor, I can come to a reasonable conclusion that in fact, there is a God. You may claim the same affinity for logic, however, you arrive at a different conclusion.
I think Ken Ham addressed this well in the debate. We look at the same evidence, but come to a different conclusion. The differences lie in the presuppositions.
Fear of death has nothing to do with my faith. At the moment, my faith doesn't temper the prospects of death. Death can't be fun regardless of world view.
I don't believe because it is a comfort or because I am compelled through fear. A faithless life certainly seems more simple and convenient.
I believe because I am convinced.
Everything I know comes from many books as well...including math and science books, not just the Bible. My atheistic reading isn't limited to Sam Harris either. I've read takes from several avid atheists.
As an aside, I do think it's funny that Sam Harris is working diligently to find the source of "belief" in the human mind/psyche. He won't find it.
I am very familiar with the biblical "contradictions" you attempt to present. Men long before you and I (and men also in the present) wrestled with many of these interpretive challenges and provide adequate and acceptable responses. It's not hard to find them.
Regurgitating the same atheistic challenges to Christianity isn't very original, but you have this kind-of condescending overtone that's cute. Are you a UNC fan?
This post was edited on 2/4 10:50 PM by Tigerus Maximus
I'll say this....Peyton Manning probably feels a lot better about himself after watching Ken Hamm in this debate, lol.
Oh just when this is getting fun, I'd imagine we'll be booted off but just the same...
I semi-quoted Sam Harris not because he is the only atheist I have read by a hell of a shot but the one who phrased that objection the best IMO.
In fact, there is neurological evidence for what you say Sam Harris is seeking. I refer you to Dr. Andy Thompson. He cites an interesting study in which brains were wired for zones of activity. Essentially three questions were asked- to paraphrase, What do you think about XYZ, what do you think your friend Bill would think about XYZ and what do think god would think about XYZ?
What do you think- area A lights up. What would Bill think- area B lights up. What does god think- area A lights up again. There are as many gods as there are believers and they all like the things you like and condemn the things you condemn. What a coincidence.
As to your point on the contradictions- sorry but the tortured logic of believers pales to that of the apologists. Give me a few to dissect and I'll happily oblige.
Whgen pressed, Ken Ham time after time fell back on "but the book says" which is circular. The book is true because the book says it's true is not an argument. I have, by the way about 120 pages of independently (meaning read and questioned by me and not Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Sagan or even Bertrand Russell) questioned passages of the most quoted and least read book in history- but that is actually a different discussion.
And speaking of arguments based on evidence- which is on topic- you have not given me a single reason why you believe. Think about it and get back to me.
By the way, I dislike UNC as much as any member of this board, though that was also off-topic.
I semi-quoted Sam Harris not because he is the only atheist I have read by a hell of a shot but the one who phrased that objection the best IMO.
In fact, there is neurological evidence for what you say Sam Harris is seeking. I refer you to Dr. Andy Thompson. He cites an interesting study in which brains were wired for zones of activity. Essentially three questions were asked- to paraphrase, What do you think about XYZ, what do you think your friend Bill would think about XYZ and what do think god would think about XYZ?
What do you think- area A lights up. What would Bill think- area B lights up. What does god think- area A lights up again. There are as many gods as there are believers and they all like the things you like and condemn the things you condemn. What a coincidence.
As to your point on the contradictions- sorry but the tortured logic of believers pales to that of the apologists. Give me a few to dissect and I'll happily oblige.
Whgen pressed, Ken Ham time after time fell back on "but the book says" which is circular. The book is true because the book says it's true is not an argument. I have, by the way about 120 pages of independently (meaning read and questioned by me and not Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Sagan or even Bertrand Russell) questioned passages of the most quoted and least read book in history- but that is actually a different discussion.
And speaking of arguments based on evidence- which is on topic- you have not given me a single reason why you believe. Think about it and get back to me.
By the way, I dislike UNC as much as any member of this board, though that was also off-topic.
I respectfully disagree as I have two problems with the bing bang...
One is the material that was banged... Please remember the law of conservation of mass. Mass is neither created nor destroyed. My question is where did it come from if it can not be created nor destroyed per scientific law.
Problem two is actually with Newton's first law. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. What is the outside force and if their is not outside force please explain the violation of this law?
Do you see the problem with the Big Bang which some say set this incredible coincidence in motion? A super dense hunk of mass that cannot be created or destroyed suddenly exploded without being acted upon by an outside force. And yet science has all the answers? Fundamentally violating two scientific laws is, in my opinion no way to start your scientific argument.
I personally fail to see how others do not feel there has to be a Creator to set this all this in motion. I do believe you have a right to your belief regardless of the fact that I feel you are incorrect. I just wonder why most evolutionists seem to feel militant about attempting to prove others wrong?
Just sayin
One is the material that was banged... Please remember the law of conservation of mass. Mass is neither created nor destroyed. My question is where did it come from if it can not be created nor destroyed per scientific law.
Problem two is actually with Newton's first law. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. What is the outside force and if their is not outside force please explain the violation of this law?
Do you see the problem with the Big Bang which some say set this incredible coincidence in motion? A super dense hunk of mass that cannot be created or destroyed suddenly exploded without being acted upon by an outside force. And yet science has all the answers? Fundamentally violating two scientific laws is, in my opinion no way to start your scientific argument.
I personally fail to see how others do not feel there has to be a Creator to set this all this in motion. I do believe you have a right to your belief regardless of the fact that I feel you are incorrect. I just wonder why most evolutionists seem to feel militant about attempting to prove others wrong?
Just sayin
Idohvac2- Douglas Adams once said in one of his Hitchhiker books that once we figure out the answers to life, the universe and everything, "it will immediately disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
This post was edited on 2/4 11:55 PM by haymond1977
This post was edited on 2/4 11:57 PM by haymond1977
This post was edited on 2/4 11:57 PM by haymond1977
Asking "why" to everything is pretty meaningless after a point. You say that you cannot answer without using God in your answer...I rebut that with...."why?"
See what I did there?
The point is that people can believe what they want to believe. I myself am very religious and it gives meaning to my life. I also believe in evolution, science, and physics... You would be ignoring all rational thought if you did not. I would never argue against these things because my religion tells me so...instead I realize that INTENTIONS of my religion are to improve my spiritual and mental quality of life...not to explain everything in the world.
TigerP94- Of course I blend the two testaments because without the first which contains "original sin" there is no need for the second which forgives it. Do not question my knowledge of the book; believe me, I have studied it. It's most fervent followers have been spoon-fed the proper bits and trusted some cleric to have read it for them.
I am not "spreading my beliefs" like a bet. That is Pascal's wager and I reject the proposition. Belief is not free of cost while the rewards are infinite. If you are wrong, you have lost time and tithe. At least with taxes, you occasionally get a road paved.
The misconception here is that the two propositions are of equal weight. Either blind forces of nature did this with nearly infinite chances or YOUR god did it. What would estimate the odds that it was chance versus the idea that Zeus did it?
All I keep hearing is "but I believe" and no one is telling me why. Ask yourself why.
I am not "spreading my beliefs" like a bet. That is Pascal's wager and I reject the proposition. Belief is not free of cost while the rewards are infinite. If you are wrong, you have lost time and tithe. At least with taxes, you occasionally get a road paved.
The misconception here is that the two propositions are of equal weight. Either blind forces of nature did this with nearly infinite chances or YOUR god did it. What would estimate the odds that it was chance versus the idea that Zeus did it?
All I keep hearing is "but I believe" and no one is telling me why. Ask yourself why.