A Pondering of the Peculiar (3)

[bhsmte]

Not talking about evidence. Never was. The evidence is there. The evidence does not contradict the Scriptures.


Remember...

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.​

- Albert Einstein​

Tell us, how does scientific evidence support the scriptures?

 

[GenemZ]

Is your attack on my character supposed to poof your god into existence? Have you nothing else?

You attack the character of Christians all the time..

Well, as far as what they Bible says about your character?

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
​

The Bible attacks your character.

 

[GenemZ]

Tell us, how does scientific evidence support the scriptures?

If you only listened to Young Earth Creationists you would never know. I would never know, either. But, because I was confronted with knowing God is real, it caused me not to quit. It was because I know God does not lie, is he nor one to have a memory lapse. So, I did my best and I ignored the YEC's (whom I found to be dishonest too many times) and kept on with my personal quest to move forward into what the Lord had entered me into.

Here is a great example of how all the fossil records prove the Bible to be the Word of God. Because, the Bible revealed prehistoric creations had existed before man ever got around to realize that dinosaurs ever existed.



First... a little background of the author. ACOL - ABOUT THE AUTHOR

And, a bit of reading material that shows how deficient Young Earth Creationists are in understanding the meaning of the words used in the original languages.

Without Form and Void - Chapter 1


​

Remember... The Bible was not re-written in panic after Darwin entered the scene! The Bible always had pointed to prehistoric creation long before the first paleontologist walked the earth. What is found in the fossil record confirms that the Bible spoke of what man could not know when the Bible was written!

 

[Davian]

Is your attack on my character supposed to poof your god into existence? Have you nothing else?

You attack the character of Christians all the time..

Quote to me where I have done that. Would it not be easier just to answer "no""?

Even if I had done such a thing, would that justify your attacking of my character?

Well, as far as what they Bible says about your character?

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
​

The Bible attacks your character.

No it doesn't.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

You must have me mistaken for someone else, as that does not describe me. Excuse me while I go back to building high-tech solutions used for training the next generation of doctors in my country.

 

[GenemZ]

look at the birdie!

 

[GenemZ]

me. Excuse me while I go back to building high-tech solutions used for training the next generation of doctors in my country.

Such men with similar ability served under Hitler. It does not give you merit one way or the other. Men with your gift can have character. And, men with your gift can be juvenile.

Its a gift that the God you reject gave you. You did not make yourself to be what you are. You simply discovered you have a certain aptitude, and then decided to pursue it.

One's occupation does not correlate with one's character. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

 

[GenemZ]

No it doesn't.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

You missed the point. The fool also said those things in his heart. He was mocking believers! He was using the flaws he perceived in believers as his excuse... Just like atheists do today!

Got it now?

 

[Davian]

Such men with similar ability served under Hitler. It does not give you merit one way or the other.

"Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" —​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism."

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there not a rule on this site about flaming? Do you care?

Men with your gift can have character. And, men with your gift can be juvenile.

Can you not stop making this personal?

Its a gift that the God you reject gave you.

I do not reject gods, I do not see that there is evidence that they are anything more than characters in books. You certainly have not presented any, have you? You just gave up and started in with the personal attacks.

You did not make yourself to be what you are. You simply discovered you have a certain aptitude, and then decided to pursue it.

Sure. It was like winning the lottery. I just sat back and let the success wash over me. I didn't have to get a college education, and then continuing education to keep up with an ever-changing high-tech industry. No, wait - it was quite the opposite. But I did win the lottery, but not until later in life.

One's occupation does not correlate with one's character.

It often does.

For who makes you different from anyone else?

DNA and experience.

What do you have that you did not receive?

Is that a which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg joke from the bible?

And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

What did I boast about?

 

[Davian]

You missed the point. The fool also said those things in his heart.

I don't.

He was mocking believers!

You don't know that. The bible writers may have simply put that in there knowing that they had no evidence for this god of theirs, and there would be plenty of sceptics even back then. Give them credit for trying, but they had no idea that the evidential bar would be as high as it is today.

He was using the flaws he perceived in believers as his excuse... Just like atheists do today!

Got it now?

No. Do you consider yourself flawless? Do you think of your beliefs as flawless?

 

[GenemZ]

"Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)

Keep in mind.. It was you who brought up the character issue. Never entered my mind before you did.

I am aware of that rule that someone decided to make up. I was not calling you a Nazi.

I used that for a reason. For, everyone readily knows the implication. I was not accusing you of anything. I was simply stating what you were claiming for yourself, and upon which you based it... means nothing. That's all. No flaming. Just making a point.

I do not reject gods, I do not see that there is evidence that they are anything more than characters in books. You certainly have not presented any, have you? You just gave up and started in with the personal attacks.

But, you do reject with what you can see. To paraphrase the Bible...

What may be known about God is plain to you, because God has made it plain to you. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that you are without excuse.

Its called intelligent Design. Something you fight as if its your duty to. You have all the evidence you need.

Sure. It was like winning the lottery. I just sat back and let the success wash over me. I didn't have to get a college education, and then continuing education to keep up with an ever-changing high-tech industry. No, wait - it was quite the opposite. But I did win the lottery, but not until later in life.

If you have the gift for such work... and the desire to do well. What you did was a logical move. Its does not mean you have any type of character one way or the other. That is why I used the Nazi reference. For there were rocket scientists on his team. What you do and achieve is no recommendation for your character, one way or the other. Remember, there are pastors who are child molesters. So much for making occupation the determining factor. eh?

Now, intelligent design you react to. Possible because you fear ridicule from your peers. So, it appears that you refuse to consider its legitimacy. OK... I can accept that. As a reference to one's character (if that be the reason why).

 

[GenemZ]

You don't know that. The bible writers may have simply put that in there knowing that they had no evidence for this god of theirs, and there would be plenty of sceptics even back then. Give them credit for trying, but they had no idea t

That was poor speculation at best. Note! It says that he said this in his heart. He did not have singers standing behind him to do the chorus.



"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

 

[Davian]

Reason does not work. Certain elements amongst scientists demand that everything be on the terms it sets, or it will not consider. Its a fixed deck.

Of course it is, but that does not mean you cannot play. The rules are there so that you cannot declare your theories to be accurate without actually demonstrating that they are, and how they are falsifiable.

There is no reasoning with that.

Have you ever tried?

Its a bully pulpit from the First Secular Church of pseudo Science.

You are projecting. Did you not self-identify as a bully earlier in this thread?

What kind of peer review? LOL! You have no idea. Again, you are imposing a standard that does not fit with the Christian way of life.
<snip>

I see why. Peer review would require that you provide evidentiary support for your falsifiable claims, and that your evidence and hypothesis stand up to scrutiny. Religion is about declaring yourself right and others wrong. You have no evidence to speak of, even amongst yourselves.

 

[Davian]

Keep in mind.. It was you who brought up the character issue. Never entered my mind before you did.

What I brought up was that you insist on personal character attacks rather than dealing with the contents of a post. Keep that in mind.

I am aware of that rule that someone decided to make up. I was not calling you a Nazi.

I used that for a reason. For, everyone readily knows the implication. I was not accusing you of anything. I was simply stating what you were claiming for yourself, and upon which you based it... means nothing. That's all. No flaming. Just making a point.

So you were calling me a Nazi. Is that really necessary?

But, you do reject with what you can see. To paraphrase the Bible...

What may be known about God is plain to you, because God has made it plain to you. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that you are without excuse.

Is this biblical humour? How are invisible things clearly seen?

Is it like Wonder Woman's' invisible jet?

Its called intelligent Design. Something you fight as if its your duty to. You have all the evidence you need.

All the evidence points to ID being nothing more than a fabrication, a "wedge" to be used in an attempt to get religion into the science class. It has no fight in it at all.

If you have the gift for such work... and the desire to do well. What you did was a logical move.

Sure, so I could pay rent and eat.

Its does not mean you have any type of character one way or the other.

Is not work ethic part of one's character?

That is why I used the Nazi reference. For there were rocket scientists on his team.

Was it not Nazi rocket scientists that got the USA's astronauts to the moon first?

Or do you not believe that men have walked on the moon?

What you do and achieve is no recommendation for your character, one way or the other.

Of course it is.

Remember, there are pastors who are child molesters. So much for making occupation the determining factor. eh?

And there are popes that cover for these molesters. What is your point?

Now, intelligent design you react to. Possible because you fear ridicule from your peers.

That must be it. I'm still a little tender after trying to win my friends over to Scientific storkism:

1. Scientific storkism, like its close relative, scientific creationism, may be verified by demonstrating that somehow, somewhere, there is something wrong with reproductive biology. If there is something wrong with reproductive biology, scientific storkism must be true.
   [*]One argument for Intelligent Delivery is that there are Irreducibly complex features of living things, which therefore could not come about by gradual, random, reproductive processes, and therefore must have been intelligently delivered.
   [*]Another argument is that, for reproduction to work, the male cannot have been reproduced before the female, nor the female before the male.
   [*]Then there is the argument that Intelligent Delivery must be true because the alternative, Reproductive Biology is self-defeating. If we come about by a naturalistic process of reproduction, then how can we trust our knowledge? If we are the result of reproduction, then our knowledge of that fact is unreliable. Therefore, we must be designed. After all, if we are designed, then obviously our knowledge is reliable, because aren't all designed things reliable?
   [*]Studies have shown a significant correlation between the number of storks and the number of child deliveries in a given area, offering strong empirical support for Intelligent Delivery.
   [*]Further, it is argued that at least one counterexample exists, falsifying the other theory.

Innovation

A recent innovation in storkism is Intelligent Delivery, availing the Big Top strategy, which encompasses other beliefs about where babies come from, such as the Cabbage Patch Theory. Intelligent Delivery does not concern itself with controversies among the opponents of reproductive biology and does not decide for The Stork as being the Intelligent Deliverer.

At least, to be fair, the schools should give equal time to Intelligent Delivery, and let the kids decide which makes sense.

Scientific storkism - RationalWiki

So, it appears that you refuse to consider its legitimacy. OK... I can accept that.

To date, no one has yet established the legitimacy of ID. Do you accept that?

As a reference to one's character (if that be the reason why).

Can you not stop making this personal?

 

[GenemZ]

I see why. Peer review would require that you provide evidentiary support for your falsifiable claims, and that your evidence and hypothesis stand up to scrutiny. Religion is about declaring yourself right and others wrong. You have no evidence to speak of, even amongst yourselves.

If Christianity had such a peer review it could not be equitable for all. Years ago in this forum there took place a major take over of the moderating duties by a certain denomination. I got banned several times for refuting their cherished beliefs. Not for calling names. Not for mocking. But, for refuting their false claims with resolve. Others got what I said and could verify. But, I could not pass peer review because in Christianity we are not all peers. No more than all Americans are peers.

Jesus and Paul both warned that the majority will be wrong. Because they want what is wrong. The honest Christians motto ought to be... "Beware of the mainstream."

 

[Davian]

I don't.

You don't know that. The bible writers may have simply put that in there knowing that they had no evidence for this god of theirs, and there would be plenty of sceptics even back then. Give them credit for trying, but they had no idea that the evidential bar would be as high as it is today.

No. Do you consider yourself flawless? Do you think of your beliefs as flawless?

That was poor speculation at best.

No, I was giving credit to the writers of the bible, that were probably doing their best to create a new religion, and learning from the failures of religions before them.

Note! It says that he said this in his heart. He did not have singers standing behind him to do the chorus.

Were you there?

Beside, hearts pump blood. They do not say anything.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Missed again. Or are you firing blanks?

Are you just going to keep with the personal attacks until the mods step in?

And, I asked, do you think of your beliefs as flawless?

 

[Davian]

If Christianity had such a peer review it could not be equitable for all.

Peer review is not about being equitable. It is about achieving and maintaining accuracy of scientific, academic, or professional work by evaluations done by others working in the same field.

Years ago in this forum there took place a major take over of the moderating duties by a certain denomination. I got banned several times for refuting their cherished beliefs. Not for calling names. Not for mocking. But, for refuting their false claims with resolve. Others got what I said and could verify. But, I could not pass peer review because in Christianity we are not all peers. No more than all Americans are peers.

That has no relation to the scientific concept of peer review.

Jesus and Paul both warned that the majority will be wrong. Because they want what is wrong. The honest Christians motto ought to be... "Beware of the mainstream."

Do you find that only "honest Christians" agree with you?

 

[GenemZ]

Is this biblical humour? How are invisible things clearly seen?

If you had an uncle who was honest and upright? If he told you that he will be bringing you a gift back for you on return from his vacation? Could you see him bringing you the gift before he saw you again? Once you can know God is real, you can base what you believe to be based upon the trustworthiness of the one telling you what is not yet seen, will be.

Is it like Wonder Woman's' invisible jet?

What good is having an invisible jet, if she is visible? Kind of defeats its purpose. Back to the drawing board.

All the evidence points to ID being nothing more than a fabrication, a "wedge" to be used in an attempt to get religion into the science class. It has no fight in it at all.

If someone hypothesized that a highly developed life form from another galaxy created us? Then you might consider it. After all, statistically, its unfathomable that the genome just happened on its own. It gives genetic orders to the body! What came first? The orders? Or the body?

"In the beginning was the genome."


Or, did the body come first? Then, what good is a body without a genome? And, a genome without a body? If the genome came first then it must have lucked out to produce a body on first try. How? By digesting proteins? Wait.. that would require a digestive system.

What brought about the genome? Non intelligence? I find the position of evolutionists to be a split personality mentality. How can they see how intelligently ordered a genome is, yet still believe its all by chance.

Is not work ethic part of one's character?

That is character. But anyone who has the work ethic (which had its roots in Protestantism) will have character, no matter what his occupation is. Again, just having your job proves nothing about ones character in itself.

To date, no one has yet established the legitimacy of ID. Do you accept that?

It requires intellectual honesty with no agenda blinders on.

Can you not stop making this personal?

Well, it is personal to me. But, you do not realize you are mocking my Father.

 

[GenemZ]

Peer review is not about being equitable. It is about achieving and maintaining accuracy of scientific, academic, or professional work by evaluations done by others working in the same field.

Martin Luther? What kind of peer review do you think he had?

The better scholars are not shy about publishing their exegesis. You just can not have a peer review by committee. That would be inviting an Inquisition once the corrupt power grabbers worked their way into power. The Church is best wen we have local autonomous churches. Just like your family should be autonomous from other families without some government body telling us all how to run their own households.

 

[GenemZ]

Do you find that only "honest Christians" agree with you?

I did not say I was honest. I simply accept the principle as being sound. If there are to be any Christians who discover what it is that Jesus came to earth to give them to live by, it will require that they be honest when faced with pressure to deflect away from what is needed.

As for myself? I am a liar. Do you believe me?

 

[GenemZ]

That has no relation to the scientific concept of peer review.

That is why I find it ludicrous when someone like yourself can think Christians should set up a peer review system. Its not a parallel system. You might as well have a peer review of artists and musicians... even writers. Or, a peer review of parents who are rearing children.