Fire

[oi_antz]

On the flip side, it's not logical to me how people can believe there is a God. I cannot possibly think of any logical way in which a deity can exist. It's all too simple, as far as I'm concerned.

Well God isn't a deity, He is the blessed architect of nature and life. I think for someone who doesn't accept God is real, it will be very difficult for us to agree exactly what and who we each consider God to be.

 

[Greg1234]

It's all too simple, as far as I'm concerned.

No, it's not. When you include multiple dimensions a square becomes a cube. A cube is not simpler than a square. It's only the result of conditioning, partly due to Darwinist predictions of a purely materialistic beginning, and the intelligence of the past having to fit the parameters of a ignorant hominid relegated to inquiry based solely on the physical mind. And then there is the appeal to the past, to justify your postion of the present against all evidence. You do the same thing with Geocentricism to justify Darwinism. Without a proper understanding of the conditions of the former, it is used as evidence for the latter. This is a practice which has leaked into the concept of spirituality, and likewise, used as evidence for materialism.

 

[Ayersy]

No, it's not. When you include multiple dimensions a square becomes a cube. A cube is not simpler than a square. It's only the result of conditioning, partly due to Darwinist predictions of a purely materialistic beginning, and the intelligence of the past having to fit the parameters of a ignorant hominid relegated to inquiry based solely on the physical mind. And then there is the appeal to the past, to justify your postion of the present against all evidence. You do the same thing with Geocentricism to justify Darwinism. Without a proper understanding of the conditions of the former, it is used as evidence for the latter. This is a practice which has leaked into the concept of spirituality, and likewise, used as evidence for materialism.

If you all take it back to the beginning, it's still the same very simple premise; God did it.

Why? God did it.
How? God did it.

Those 3 words are used to answer virtually every single question about the universe that humans ask. If that ain't simple, I don't know what is.

Since when did I use Geocentrism to justify Darwinism?

 

[Ayersy]

Well God isn't a deity, He is the blessed architect of nature and life. I think for someone who doesn't accept God is real, it will be very difficult for us to agree exactly what and who we each consider God to be.

Apparently for those who do believe God is real, it's very difficult for them to agree exactly what and who God is.

I don't can't logically see the possibility of any supernatural beings on the simple premise that there's never been any evidence of any, and really, there's no reason to assume there ever will be.

 

[Greg1234]

If you all take it back to the beginning, it's still the same very simple premise; God did it.

Why? God did it.
How? God did it.

Those 3 words are used to answer virtually every single question about the universe that humans ask. If that ain't simple, I don't know what is.

Saying that your computer was designed by an engineer begins inquiry. And a Ph.D in engineering is anything but simple.

Since when did I use Geocentrism to justify Darwinism?

Darwinists use it. Those who call themselves "TE" and the pure Darwinists.

 

[Ayersy]

Saying that your computer was designed by an engineer begins inquiry. And a Ph.D in engineering is anything but simple.

Darwinists use it. Those who call themselves "TE" and the pure Darwinists.

A little different, in that we know the components the computer is made of, and we can see the schematics of the computer. We KNOW the computer was designed by an engineer, since we can meet the engineer, shake hands with him, and ask him questions about it. He can give a talk at a conference, and everyone will hear the same words coming out of his mouth. It's not open to interpretation. Of course a Ph.D in engineering isn't simple, I never said it was.

So, talking about the creation of the universe isn't simple in of itself, but stating "God did it." is very simple. It's all too convenient, it's all too easy, and it makes no sense.

Having never met any "Darwinists", I couldn't really comment on the geocentrism thingy.

 

[oi_antz]

Apparently for those who do believe God is real, it's very difficult for them to agree exactly what and who God is.

I don't can't logically see the possibility of any supernatural beings on the simple premise that there's never been any evidence of any, and really, there's no reason to assume there ever will be.

I'm not sure if you are meaning to ignore the fact that God is a real person, and the whole intent of putting the human in the garden is to experience this relationship with God, and yes it's certainly optional if you choose not to have this experience.

 

[Ayersy]

I'm not sure if you are meaning to ignore the fact that God is a real person, and the whole intent of putting the human in the garden is to experience this relationship with God, and yes it's certainly optional if you choose not to have this experience.

The "fact" that God is a real person? Since when was it a fact? Where's the evidence?

If it's apparently a fact that God is real, then I wouldn't be able to choose whether or not I have the experience.

 

[Greg1234]

A little different, in that we know the components the computer is made of, and we can see the schematics of the computer. We KNOW the computer was designed by an engineer, since we can meet the engineer, shake hands with him, and ask him questions about it. He can give a talk at a conference, and everyone will hear the same words coming out of his mouth. It's not open to interpretation. Of course a Ph.D in engineering isn't simple, I never said it was.

I have never met the engineer who designed this computer. And I know its designed. Even if every intelligent life form was wiped out today, and an alien race were to land on the earth, they would realize that intelligent life was there.

So, talking about the creation of the universe isn't simple in of itself, but stating "God did it." is very simple. It's all too convenient, it's all too easy, and it makes no sense.

Having never met any "Darwinists", I couldn't really comment on the geocentrism thingy.

Its not merely stating that it is designed, but realizing that it is designed. It makes no sense to you because thats one of the beliefs which is nourished and cultivated in atheism. To believe that God is primitive. And that is in fact the basic doctrine which spear heads an atheist's line of thinking, and usually the first used to penetrate the mind of a theist, when an attempt is made to get him to be a Darwinist. And as a theist, you are probably well aware that one cannot entertain this view, especially in light of the actual evidence. When a Christian is speaking to you, your mind is repeating "ignorant hominid-ism" about 200000 times per second. Thats why you don't hear anything.

 

[Ayersy]

I have never met the engineer who designed this computer. And I know its designed. Even if every intelligent life form was wiped out today, and an alien race were to land on the earth, they would realize that intelligent life was there.

Again, big difference between a computer, and the universe. A computer is not infinite, it is not constantly moving and changing. It is a tool, an object. An alien race would realise that intelligent life was here due to the computer, correct, but the universe is not a computer, it is a place which we inhabit. You cannot compare the two.

The universe itself is not prove of a designer, it's simply proof that the universe is here.

Its not merely stating that it is designed, but realizing that it is designed. It makes no sense to you because thats one of the beliefs which is nourished and cultivated in atheism. To believe that God is primitive. And that is in fact the basic doctrine which spear heads an atheist's line of thinking, and usually the first used to penetrate the mind of a theist, when an attempt is made to get him to be a Darwinist. And as a theist, you are probably well aware that one cannot entertain this view, especially in light of the actual evidence. When a Christian is speaking to you, your mind is repeating "ignorant hominid-ism" about 200000 times per second. Thats why you don't hear anything.

How can I believe God is primitive, when I don't think God exists? Though certainly, if he did exist, he would be primitive, in that he doesn't seem to apparently know things that we now know. Why didn't he write in the Bible about the rest of the universe? About the billions of other stars out there, lightyears away from us, that are burning out every second? Which, by the way, is pretty wasteful, to create the WHOLE universe, with all this other stuff going on, just for some tiny little species of humans on a tiny little planet in a tiny little part of the universe... All that other stuff out there going on, for pretty much no reason.

Anyway, the reason why he couldn't explain all that in the Bible is because of the fact that the Bible was written by men, in a time when none of that stuff was known. So yes, God would be primitive, if he were real.

There is no "doctrine" of atheism, despite not believing in any gods, and to encourage a theist to actually think outside of their own religion is never a bad thing, I don't know why you're presenting it as though it is. If someones faith is so weak that it shatters upon the premise of God being primitive, then it wasn't really worth holding onto, in the first place. I still have no idea what you are talking about when you call people Darwinists. There's people who see evolution as the logical way of life getting to where it is today, but that doesn't make them "Darwinists".

You apparently know how I'm thinking, huh? That's cool. Untrue, but cool. I'm not thinking "ignorant hominid-ism" at all, quite how you jumped to that conclusion is beyond me. I don't think that in the slightest. What I do think, however, is that theists are too wrapped up in their comforting cotton-wool blankets of faith, that they refuse to even search outside of their normal realms of thought, for fear that their blankets may be taken away. This is why they have to make up things about people who don't share their faith, which you have just done by telling me how I apparently think.

Whereas I know that faith is comforting, because theists regularly say how comforted they are by their faith, and because I used to be a Christian myself, so I haven't made anything up, there.

 

[b&wpac4]

In fact he did not. Christ entered the house of a tax collector and had dinner with him. This would have made him ritually unclean by Jewish law, but could not by the new covenant.

Which law is this? I know of no such idea that by eating with a tax collector you would be unclean.

You state later that you don't expect a member of another faith to understand. That's understandable, but I would expect you to realize you should reflect that upon yourself and Judaism. You do not understand, and in two cases now have made mistakes with Jewish law.

I wouldn't even be on this thread if you hadn't made the bold statement that Judaism sees sin as more powerful than God. That is ridiculous and simply dead wrong. Nothing is more powerful than God in Judaism.

I could even argue that Christian theology sees sin as more powerful than God because I am constantly told that God cannot simply forgive sin, Jesus was required for God to be able to forgive sins. That certainly sounds like sin is more powerful. I'm not saying it's the true theology, just that it can be argued.

 

[Greg1234]

Again, big difference between a computer, and the universe. A computer is not infinite, it is not constantly moving and changing. It is a tool, an object. An alien race would realise that intelligent life was here due to the computer, correct, but the universe is not a computer, it is a place which we inhabit. You cannot compare the two.

The universe itself is not prove of a designer, it's simply proof that the universe is here.

You're so anxious and keen to move from the human system into the vastness of the universe. This is where we are now, at the human body. This has nothing to do with infinite or finite, but the fact that the computer is designed. Man is more complex than a computer. One of the prime attributes governing the realization that the computer was designed or the great pyramid is the fact that it can be done by man. When man holds himself as the prime mover, or makes himself into a God, then machinery like bionano technology, information storage and communication devices like DNA, none of which he has a firm grasp of yet, will either be done by him or by chance. But if man were making molecular machines, then materialism would most likely recede into a position of panspermia. But thats another story.

How can I believe God is primitive, when I don't think God exists? Though certainly, if he did exist, he would be primitive, in that he doesn't seem to apparently know things that we now know. Why didn't he write in the Bible about the rest of the universe? About the billions of other stars out there, lightyears away from us, that are burning out every second? Which, by the way, is pretty wasteful, to create the WHOLE universe, with all this other stuff going on, just for some tiny little species of humans on a tiny little planet in a tiny little part of the universe... All that other stuff out there going on, for pretty much no reason.

Never miss an opportunity to advertise atheism. Thats not what I mean. The concept of design. I'm sure youve heard of it. And you attribute it to simplicity, to being primitive. Thats what I mean. And I'm sure you are well aware thats what I mean. When you're done, address as given.

Anyway, the reason why he couldn't explain all that in the Bible is because of the fact that the Bible was written by men, in a time when none of that stuff was known. So yes, God would be primitive, if he were real.

Thats your belief

There is no "doctrine" of atheism, despite not believing in any gods, and to encourage a theist to actually think outside of their own religion is never a bad thing, I don't know why you're presenting it as though it is. If someones faith is so weak that it shatters upon the premise of God being primitive, then it wasn't really worth holding onto, in the first place. I still have no idea what you are talking about when you call people Darwinists. There's people who see evolution as the logical way of life getting to where it is today, but that doesn't make them "Darwinists".

You can keep denying it, but it is in fact a prerequisite to being a materialist or a Darwinist. Those you call themselves "TE" are quicker than you to point out what they consider primitiveness in text, though they are not yet as mature in that regard as the materialist. It doesn't shatter anything but in the end ends up exposing the misunderstanding of those who approach such text employing their own belief of a primitive origin and it is that sense of superiority, and the ensuing arrogance of diving in, to showcase some evolutionary dominance over some preconceived materialistic beginning that often leads to their downfall. Its not a problem otherwise. But at times, can get annoying.

You apparently know how I'm thinking, huh? That's cool. Untrue, but cool. I'm not thinking "ignorant hominid-ism" at all, quite how you jumped to that conclusion is beyond me. I don't think that in the slightest. What I do think, however, is that theists are too wrapped up in their comforting cotton-wool blankets of faith, that they refuse to even search outside of their normal realms of thought, for fear that their blankets may be taken away. This is why they have to make up things about people who don't share their faith, which you have just done by telling me how I apparently think.

A theist has no choice but to perceive reality beyond the physical. It is the materialist who has a duty to adhere to a purely material state and it is why, when he meets the brick wall that is the human body, things like chance building a human system and writing codes sounds like music to his ears. I have no obligation to uphold materialism, therefore I cannot dance with you

Whereas I know that faith is comforting, because theists regularly say how comforted they are by their faith, and because I used to be a Christian myself, so I haven't made anything up, there.

And water will freeze at zero degrees. Fire will burn paper, and the vibratory state experienced will yield said result. This is natural law, and he/she has no choice but to feel a sense of comfort, or peace, water has no choice but to freeze. In the words of the Nazarene, "my peace I give to you". Not because he felt peace, or a theist will inevitably feel peace or comfort, that bacteria can turn into men. Another cheap attempt at hijacking. What water is supposed to say now, is hey I freeze, Darwinism must be true. Or a theist must now try his bestest best to not feel peace or comfort in order to evade the atheist claims. Nice try.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Oh boy, I guess you're standing against almost everyone else who lived then

Not particularly.

Yes you are correct, I am keen to help you find God's truth, because I have found from knowing God's truth first hand that this is indeed the purpose of life. I respect your decision but I'll keep an eye out for you.

I'm quite happy with my own purpose, to be honest. If God wants me to fulfil a particular purpose, he can arrange that.

 

[Ayersy]

You're so anxious and keen to move from the human system into the vastness of the universe. This is where we are now, at the human body. This has nothing to do with infinite or finite, but the fact that the computer is designed. Man is more complex than a computer. One of the prime attributes governing the realization that the computer was designed or the great pyramid is the fact that it can be done by man. When man holds himself as the prime mover, or makes himself into a God, then machinery like bionano technology, information storage and communication devices like DNA, none of which he has a firm grasp of yet, will either be done by him or by chance. But if man were making molecular machines, then materialism would most likely recede into a position of panspermia. But thats another story.

Complexity =/= Design.

Just because it cannot be done by man (Not yet, anyway), does not mean that it must have been done by someone else.

Never miss an opportunity to advertise atheism. Thats not what I mean. The concept of design. I'm sure youve heard of it. And you attribute it to simplicity, to being primitive. Thats what I mean. And I'm sure you are well aware thats what I mean. When you're done, address as given.

The sheer concept of design is very primitive. There's no why's or how's in there, just the simple notion that we were made. That is primitive. There's no other way of describing it.

Thats your belief

Until there exists evidence to the contrary, it'll stay that way.

You can keep denying it, but it is in fact a prerequisite to being a materialist or a Darwinist. Those you call themselves "TE" are quicker than you to point out what they consider primitiveness in text, though they are not yet as mature in that regard as the materialist. It doesn't shatter anything but in the end ends up exposing the misunderstanding of those who approach such text employing their own belief of a primitive origin and it is that sense of superiority, and the ensuing arrogance of diving in, to showcase some evolutionary dominance over some preconceived materialistic beginning that often leads to their downfall. Its not a problem otherwise. But at times, can get annoying.

It seems you are very good at typing large blocks of text without actually really saying much. I assume by "TE" you mean "Theistic Evolutionists". With that in mind, I don't really see what "maturity" has do with anything, in comparison to materialists. I've tried viewing this part of your post from every angle, and viewpoint (I even turned my laptop upside down) to try and see what you were getting at, and I'm still not really certain as to what you're trying to get at, here. Though I am quite ill at the moment, so my brain is a little fuzzy. Care to try and simplify, for my cold-addled brain?

Otherwise, I translated your post as: "People who believe in evolution tried to approach the origins of life with the wrong viewpoint, which is arrogant, pointless, and shows them to be wrong. It's also kind of annoying."

If I'm wrong (Which I probably am), then please correct me.

A theist has no choice but to perceive reality beyond the physical. It is the materialist who has a duty to adhere to a purely material state and it is why, when he meets the brick wall that is the human body, things like chance building a human system and writing codes sounds like music to his ears. I have no obligation to uphold materialism, therefore I cannot dance with you

I'm not asking you to dance. We don't have a duty to adhere to anything, we just don't see beyond the physical because there is absolutely no reason to assume there is anything beyond it. There is no evidence for it. If there is, then present it.

Evolution isn't music to anyone's ears. It's an answer to a question, and it's an answer than makes more logical sense than any other answers we've been able to come up with. That is why people believe it, not because "YAY! WE WEREN'T DESIGNED! WHEEEE!", but because it actually is a fairly decent explanation of how life got to where it is, today.

And water will freeze at zero degrees. Fire will burn paper, and the vibratory state experienced will yield said result. This is natural law, and he/she has no choice but to feel a sense of comfort, or peace, water has no choice but to freeze. In the words of the Nazarene, "my peace I give to you". Not because he felt peace, or a theist will inevitably feel peace or comfort, that bacteria can turn into men. Another cheap attempt at hijacking. What water is supposed to say now, is hey I freeze, Darwinism must be true. Or a theist must now try his bestest best to not feel peace or comfort in order to evade the atheist claims. Nice try.

Again, here you seem to be typing alot without actually saying anything in particular. You're pretty good at that.

I don't feel any source of comfort in thinking that evolution is true. I find it fascinating, but not comforting. I doubt any other people who believe in evolution find it particularly comforting, either, no more than coming to the realization of why the sky is blue is particularly comforting.

I'm not saying that a theist must not be comforted, of course they're going to be, they believe that they have eternal life and love from an omniscient being. They're bound to be comforted. What I'm saying is that this is why they are so opposed to anything which even threatens their faith in the slightest, because then if they start to think differently, if it turns out things ain't what they thought they were, then the strings of their comfort blankets will start to unravel, and they may lose the warmth it provides.

Ignorance really is bliss.

 

[Greg1234]

Complexity =/= Design.

Just because it cannot be done by man (Not yet, anyway), does not mean that it must have been done by someone else.

One of the prime attributes of design is integrated complexity. Another is testing.

The sheer concept of design is very primitive. There's no why's or how's in there, just the simple notion that we were made. That is primitive. There's no other way of describing it.

Start there. Not end. Darwinism makes you feel like youre doing something. But thats about it.

Until there exists evidence to the contrary, it'll stay that way.

For the Darwinist. But evidence to the contrary is not a problem.

It seems you are very good at typing large blocks of text without actually really saying much. I assume by "TE" you mean "Theistic Evolutionists". With that in mind, I don't really see what "maturity" has do with anything, in comparison to materialists. I've tried viewing this part of your post from every angle, and viewpoint (I even turned my laptop upside down) to try and see what you were getting at, and I'm still not really certain as to what you're trying to get at, here. Though I am quite ill at the moment, so my brain is a little fuzzy. Care to try and simplify, for my cold-addled brain?
Otherwise, I translated your post as: "People who believe in evolution tried to approach the origins of life with the wrong viewpoint, which is arrogant, pointless, and shows them to be wrong. It's also kind of annoying."

If I'm wrong (Which I probably am), then please correct me.

You believe in Darwinism therefore you have no choice but to relegate ancient text to ignorant hominids. You are a materialist therefore you have no choice but to constrain text to derivations from the purely material mind. This is your position. These are your beliefs.

I'm not asking you to dance. We don't have a duty to adhere to anything, we just don't see beyond the physical because there is absolutely no reason to assume there is anything beyond it. There is no evidence for it. If there is, then present it.

The human body was designed. Begin there. You probably don't have a firm grasp on what evidence is. When you turn on your radio, this is evidence for radio waves. When you use Radar, and you get returns, this is evidence for radio waves. When you use other instrumentation, which measures output from a transmitter this is evidence for radio waves. You have never seen radio waves have you. A needle on a measuring device is just needle moving. Obviously, Lem Troper from Houston 98.7 is bacteria inside the radio having developed the ability to talk. The insanity never ends. So by your logic, there is no evidence for radio waves. The way you know that it is radio waves comes from study, and the realization of the limits of a radio, and the surrounding construct of the apparatus. You merely repeat what you hear others say, and you have a lot to learn. The human body was designed. Thats where you are right now. Start there.

Evolution isn't music to anyone's ears. It's an answer to a question, and it's an answer than makes more logical sense than any other answers we've been able to come up with. That is why people believe it, not because "YAY! WE WEREN'T DESIGNED! WHEEEE!", but because it actually is a fairly decent explanation of how life got to where it is, today.

Its the answer to materialistic belief. Chance building a human system is not applicable to the real world.

I don't feel any source of comfort in thinking that evolution is true. I find it fascinating, but not comforting. I doubt any other people who believe in evolution find it particularly comforting, either, no more than coming to the realization of why the sky is blue is particularly comforting.

I never said anything about what you feel. What you do on your own time is none of my concern.

I'm not saying that a theist must not be comforted, of course they're going to be, they believe that they have eternal life and love from an omniscient being. They're bound to be comforted. What I'm saying is that this is why they are so opposed to anything which even threatens their faith in the slightest, because then if they start to think differently, if it turns out things ain't what they thought they were, then the strings of their comfort blankets will start to unravel, and they may lose the warmth it provides.

Ignorance really is bliss.

It seems like you're more concerned with reciting a planned agenda. Let it out. In the mean time, Darwinism is rejected based on scientific evidence. Chance cannot build a man. The remnants of man's beginning, what you refer to as "comfort", will resurface when conditions are rectified. But Darwinism is rejected long before that.

 

[Ayersy]

One of the prime attributes of design is integrated complexity. Another is testing.

No it isn't, not at all. Complexity is just a sign that something is complex. It's a huge leap to say "I don't understand this completely, therefore a higher power who did understand it must have created it!" is just insane. What does make sense is to say "I don't understand this, so I will study it, propose theories, and work on revising those theories.".

Start there. Not end. Darwinism makes you feel like youre doing something. But thats about it.

Again, typing something that isn't really saying anything. Start where? End where? What? I said the concept of design is primitive, what does that have to do with starting, finishing, or me doing something?

For the Darwinist. But evidence to the contrary is not a problem.

For everyone. If this evidence is so prevalent, why not provide it? Holy scriptures do not count, since they could have been written by men, and there is nothing to suggest they are divinely inspired at all, apart from the books themselves saying so. So, present the evidence.

You believe in Darwinism therefore you have no choice but to relegate ancient text to ignorant hominids. You are a materialist therefore you have no choice but to constrain text to derivations from the purely material mind. This is your position. These are your beliefs.

You have this backwards. I believe the ancient texts were written by bronze age goat herders who didn't know anything about the world, so I consider the texts flawed. Therefore, I believe in evolution, because it makes sense. It's not Darwinism, by the way. You do realise that the theory of evolution has evolved (Hah!) a long way since Darwin, right? He just got the ball rolling, that's all. It has very little to do with him, nowadays.

The human body was designed. Begin there. You probably don't have a firm grasp on what evidence is. When you turn on your radio, this is evidence for radio waves. When you use Radar, and you get returns, this is evidence for radio waves. When you use other instrumentation, which measures output from a transmitter this is evidence for radio waves. You have never seen radio waves have you. A needle on a measuring device is just needle moving. Obviously, Lem Troper from Houston 98.7 is bacteria inside the radio having developed the ability to talk. The insanity never ends. So by your logic, there is no evidence for radio waves. The way you know that it is radio waves comes from study, and the realization of the limits of a radio, and the surrounding construct of the apparatus. You merely repeat what you hear others say, and you have a lot to learn. The human body was designed. Thats where you are right now. Start there.

That's a claim. A claim made from nowhere. I could just as easily propose that aliens dropped us on this planet as seeds millions of years ago, and we grew since then. We could be space-weeds, the nuisance of the galaxy.

This, of course, is stupid, and there's nothing to back it up, besides the fact that I just said it, right there. Much like intelligent design.

I think you don't know what evidence is, there is evidence of radio waves because of the fact we can measure them, observe them, and control them, with the right equipment. That's evidence they exist.

The whole radio thing is a really bad analogy, since it's completely different to the idea of intelligent design, and the fact that radio waves are a human construct, we made them, we control them, we detect them.

As for study, what exactly do you think evolution is? It's studying life. That's how we find things out. With creation, there is no studying, it's just "Bonk! God made life! ".

You're merely repeating what others say, just that what you're saying has been around for alot longer than what I'm saying. The human body wasn't designed. Start there.

Its the answer to materialistic belief. Chance building a human system is not applicable to the real world.

It's seeking to find the answer to an important question, as opposed to claiming to know the answer without any evidence to back it up.

Everything happens by chance, it's very applicable to the real world.

I never said anything about what you feel. What you do on your own time is none of my concern.

But...

Not because he felt peace, or a theist will inevitably feel peace or comfort, that bacteria can turn into men.

Granted, I didn't fully understand this poorly worded sentence of yours, but I took it to mean that you think ToE believers take some comfort from "bacteria turning into men". Even though that's not what the ToE actually says.

It seems like you're more concerned with reciting a planned agenda. Let it out. In the mean time, Darwinism is rejected based on scientific evidence. Chance cannot build a man. The remnants of man's beginning, what you refer to as "comfort", will resurface when conditions are rectified. But Darwinism is rejected long before that.

I have no agenda, besides trying to get people to think, a little bit. It certainly ain't planned though, I'm wingin' it, baby.

Darwinism may be rejected since it's at the slight disadvantage of being a made up word, by you. The theory of evolution, however, is far from being rejected, in fact, most of the scientific community backs it, I do believe. Chance cannot build a man, but chance can bring about the means for life to adapt and thrive, which is all that is being implied.

As for the "remnants of man's beginning"... Well, we'll just have to see what new discoveries science makes, won't we? Best get comfortable though, because unless your God pulls his socks up, "Darwinism", as you so wrongly put it, ain't going nowhere, it's only going to get stronger, the more evidence we find.

 

[Greg1234]

No it isn't, not at all. Complexity is just a sign that something is complex. It's a huge leap to say "I don't understand this completely, therefore a higher power who did understand it must have created it!" is just insane. What does make sense is to say "I don't understand this, so I will study it, propose theories, and work on revising those theories.".

It is an increase in understanding which continues to reveal design. Before the advent of the electron microscope, materialists could have sat on their glob of protoplasm postulations. Before we had a proper understanding of structures, Darwinists could have found greater traction with their assertions of vestigiality. We are dropping "junk DNA", and random mutations will soon follow. An increase in knowledge continues to reveal design. Study is encouraged, not shunned. If I were to find a 747 on mars it was designed. Saying it was designed by intelligence does not stop inquiry, does not stop study.

For everyone. If this evidence is so prevalent, why not provide it? Holy scriptures do not count, since they could have been written by men, and there is nothing to suggest they are divinely inspired at all, apart from the books themselves saying so. So, present the evidence.

The human body was designed. Start there.

You have this backwards. I believe the ancient texts were written by bronze age goat herders who didn't know anything about the world, so I consider the texts flawed. Therefore, I believe in evolution, because it makes sense. It's not Darwinism, by the way. You do realise that the theory of evolution has evolved (Hah!) a long way since Darwin, right? He just got the ball rolling, that's all. It has very little to do with him, nowadays.

You can put it any way you want. Backwards or frontwards. Its called circular logic. In the end, the evidence prevails, and my circle beats your circle. Darwinism will make sense to you. Because it nourishes your belief. But as it stands, bacteria cannot turn into men.

That's a claim. A claim made from nowhere. I could just as easily propose that aliens dropped us on this planet as seeds millions of years ago, and we grew since then. We could be space-weeds, the nuisance of the galaxy.

Of course you can. Then we can go from there.

This, of course, is stupid, and there's nothing to back it up, besides the fact that I just said it, right there. Much like intelligent design.

Except for the fact that chance cannot build a man.

I think you don't know what evidence is, there is evidence of radio waves because of the fact we can measure them, observe them, and control them, with the right equipment. That's evidence they exist.

The whole radio thing is a really bad analogy, since it's completely different to the idea of intelligent design, and the fact that radio waves are made by humans, we made them, we control them, we detect them.

Ah. But you cannot see them. The equipment is just evidence for the equipment, right? I mean, there could be a tiny man inside the equipment moving the needle. The radar is just blips on the screen. You have never seen radio waves. You have to see it. Therefore there is no evidence for radio waves. I am using your logic. If the non physical were to become physical, then to you it would stand as evidence for the physical and not the non physical. When you delve detectability,as im sure you would have, begin by detecting the human body,the manifestation of the non physical into the physical. Then when youre ready, we'll study and go into more advanced forms of application and detection of the immaterial, and the fact the the universe exists as only as vibration and frequency. The radio analogy was purposefully used, as you are well aware that the eyes nose and ears are detection devices, protruding from your brain, picking up frequencies, like the antenna protrudes from your radio, doing same. But as it stands, you are here. At the human. So begin here.

As for study, what exactly do you think evolution is? It's studying life. That's how we find things out. With creation, there is no studying, it's just "Bonk! God made life! ".

"Bonk! The engineer designed the computer!" .

You're merely repeating what others say, just that what you're saying has been around for alot longer than what I'm saying. The human body wasn't designed. Start there.

And thats where I debate materialists. A theist will often make the mistake of discussing scripture and the like with a materialist, not realizing that unlike the case of a Muslim or another Christian, you have to come back, all the way back to the starting point, as unlike the aforementioned parties, the materialist has not yet realized that the human system has been created. And this is where they are, this is what they are toying with. Its almost the same with those who call themselves "TE". They have taken up bashing scripture because they believe that you could skip over the beginning, and meet the middle. But the transformation has already begun. Yes, that is where our paths will intersect, at the human body. Your beliefs about religion based on Darwinism, your beliefs about theists based on Darwinism, your beliefs about life based on Darwinism, your beliefs about purpose based on Darwinism, your beliefs about the mind based on Darwinism, does not carry. Man was created. Begin there.

It's seeking to find the answer to an important question, as opposed to claiming to know the answer without any evidence to back it up.

Everything happens by chance, it's very applicable to the real world.

Human systems, 747''s, Cars, and robots cannot be assembled through chance. Tests continue to demonstrate this. Design also happens in the real world. And this is what we apply to this degree of complexity and observation derived from testing.

Darwinism may be rejected since it's at the slight disadvantage of being a made up word, by you. The theory of evolution, however, is far from being rejected, in fact, most of the scientific community backs it, I do believe. Chance cannot build a man, but chance can bring about the means for life to adapt and thrive, which is all that is being implied.

Again, you say science then you try to link it with Darwinism. Adaptive feature for example has been discovered in the DNA bio computer. And it only gets more complex, more evidence of design. As we progress.

As for the "remnants of man's beginning"... Well, we'll just have to see what new discoveries science makes, won't we? Best get comfortable though, because unless your God pulls his socks up, "Darwinism", as you so wrongly put it, ain't going nowhere, it's only going to get stronger, the more evidence we find.

I'm sure it will. The only problem is we are not waiting for more evidence for Darwinism. We have evidence against it. So keep clinging to it. Signing out.

 

[dlamberth]

So, I'm reading some Sufi material when I came across this tid bit. I found the commentary interesting, particuly in its use of Fire imagery.



"Willpower is the keynote of mastery, and
asceticism is the development of willpower."
-- Hazrat Inayat Khan


Commentary by Hazrat Samuel L. Lewis:

This willpower is love-power and life-power; only, when it
expresses itself as power it is called "will". That is to say,
in love -- true love -- power, intelligence and beauty should
be in equilibrium. When beauty dominates there is adoration
which leads to intoxication, and when power dominates there is
more fire without always more light.

In order that the will power be not destructive, in order that
it be one with intelligence and beauty, the spiritual life is
followed which concentrates everything upon Unity. No doubt
the life in the desert accomplishes it, but that is like
spending all one's time gathering fuel for a fire, which is
used neither to cook food nor to warm others. The real
spiritual asceticism is followed in the midst of the world;
this is nothing but surrender for the purpose of a greater
benefit for oneself and the whole humanity.

.

 

[oi_antz]

The "fact" that God is a real person? Since when was it a fact? Where's the evidence?

If it's apparently a fact that God is real, then I wouldn't be able to choose whether or not I have the experience.

I mentioned this to Sith before, that the world and the Bible contain all the evidence we need, what is important is how we use information, the attitude and motives we have. If you're not intentionally willing to discover God for real then you're consciously deciding to draw that conclusion. Thus, it is your very own decision whether you accept or deny the fact that God exists. Your decision to agree or disagree doesn't change this fact.

 

[Zstar]

It's all fine. You don't need to worry about any of it; least of all the venting. What are friends for, except to vent to?

I have broad shoulders, Zs.

(And as it happens I am right , but the others who can believe what they like are also right. The only wrong action is to believe something contrary to one's conscience or personal integrity; which is not wrong because it is a sin, but only because it abdicates personal sovereignty to someone else's opinion.)

Your so sweet!

Thanks for the hug!