Dawkins Admits that they are working on it.

[AV1611VET]

So you take the word of 2000 year old shepherds over your own eyes?

These 40+ "shepherds" were hand-picked by God to perform this elite chore. You bet I'll take their word over my own eyes.

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:7[/bible]

I hope you never get sick and require an antibiotic instead of an exorcism...

LOL --- that remark is a PRATT.

 

[Morcova]

Then he should shut up and wait for his elders and betters to speak.

Shouldn't you be taking your own advice?

 

[IrishRockhound]

Interesting choice of words.

[bible]Acts 17:23[/bible]

Oh really? I have been told often enough that your god is unknowable. That he is a higher being, the like of which a mortal man may not comprehend. So again I ask - who are you to speak for such a being? Who are you to make such arrogant statements about your god?

He did --- and they still crucified Him.

You misunderstand. If he can speak for himself, and has spoken for himself in the past, why does he not do so now? Why should he send a messenger such as you to represent him, when by your words you drive people away from him?

Then I invite you to come over here and study our jurisprudence, where what's in writing carries more weight than what is merely spoken.

What do your laws have to do with this? My statement was clear; if your god would elevate a mere book over the combined learning of our entire race, then he is not worthy of our devotion. One old book, AV, versus all of scientific endeavour; one ancient text against our reasoning and logic.

Do I dispute that written things are more weighty than spoken things? No. All scientific research is written, just like the bible. My point is simple - you elevate the bible above all else written. You would have us abandon science if it contradicts the bible, abandon reason if it contradicts the bible. If your god demands this as you do, then he is a small and petty god, and he is not worthy of our praise.

Scientists like Dawkins are happy to say that they don't know something. They are not so arrogant that they will claim to know the truth and will not be swayed. How many times have you been told that evolution is the best explanation for the evidence? How many times have people here asked for 'proof' and were told that proof is for mathematics and alcohol? Scientists have ideas, hypotheses, theories; they have evidence, not proof. You would hold it against them because they do not have absolutes, like you do, and they are not afraid to admit they do not know something... yet.

 

[atomweaver]

These 40+ "shepherds" were hand-picked by God to perform this elite chore. You bet I'll take their word over my own eyes.

Tell me, if it wasn't "your own eyes", what part of your body do you use to read the words of those shepherds?

 

[Naraoia]

Excuse me?

I have a feeling you don't know much about how Hebrew poetry works;

Hebrew poetry?? I thought the True Bible was written in English

 

[AV1611VET]

You would have us abandon science if it contradicts the bible, abandon reason if it contradicts the bible.

IrishRockhound, no offense, but for all practical purposes you're a newbie here. I see you joined well before I did, but I have a feeling you haven't read all my posts, and really don't know me well enough to speak for me. But for the record, and I don't know how many times I've said this before, we hold science up to a higher Standard than atheists do. This means we recognize God as the Author of science. This means that [true] scientists and medical doctors, etc. are a gift from God.

I never suggest abandoning science; rather I always suggest that the data be reinterpreted to align itself to what the Bible says. I have always challenged someone to tell me what they can do in a laboratory that I cannot do if I had the same training as they.

I'll even throw in my favorite example for about the third time, just to show you I'm a nice guy:

1. "Evidence" says the Egyptians existed before the Flood.
2. The Egyptians still exist today.
3. Therefore the Flood was not a global flood.

Now the Bible's take on it:

1. Since the Egyptians came from Mizraim, who was Noah's grandson, the Egyptians came after the Flood, not before it.
2. The Egyptians still exist today.
3. And the Flood was a global flood, as depicted in the Bible.

Scientists like Dawkins are happy to say that they don't know something.

Good --- and I applaud him for that. Those here that know me, and have been through debates with me, know that I know very little about science - very little.

But what I don't applaud, is someone who throws the Bible out, then claims they don't know something, when it's right there --- in writing --- from the One Who was there.

 

[speakout]

Who is 'we'? Who is 'yourselves'? Who is 'us'? Are we playing skins against shirts?

Here's what happened. You started a thread referencing to the fact that Dawkins doesn't know with 100% certainty that there is no god(s). I'm telling you this isn't news, and that Dawkins has always maintained that the probability of a deity is "highly unlikely" and "very low", and that he never claimed 100% knowledge of the non-existence of deities. I also mentioned that unlike religious authority, Dawkins is just another voice - not infallible, not to be followed or worshiped, and no 'authority'.

So, that's what happened, and where we're at now.

Spinmeister,

No, the thread is about what happened to make all be alive?

How did life begin?

Your master says he does not know but wants to label others child abusers for teaching the Bible, what a strange fellow he is?

 

[Naraoia]

I never suggest abandoning science; rather I always suggest that the data be reinterpreted to align itself to what the Bible says.

But, you see, science is about aligning interpretations to the DATA. That's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

 

[Naraoia]

Your master says he does not know but wants to label others child abusers for teaching the Bible, what a strange fellow he is?

What's the connection?

And how is Dawkins anyone's "master"?

I'll gladly admit him as teacher (albeit indirectly), I've read two of his books and plan to read the others and he did teach me a thing or two about the world. But master?

 

[MoonLancer]

LOL --- that remark is a PRATT.

exactly how is that point been refuted, when evolution and medical science use the data as its way to align itself? If medical science didn't change due to data we would be still bleeding people to rid them of diseases. Its the data that said differently and we listened. it was the data that said evolution happens.

 

[Skavau]

Science can ask all the questions they want, but when science starts telling us things contrary to what science's Creator said or did, science has overstepped its authority.

Of course, one of the questions that science would ask is where is the scientific evidence for this creator that you speak of? Only then can science recognise any authority of this creator.

So where is the evidence for this God that you invoke?

 

[TheBear]

How did life begin?

I don't know, and neither do you.

But that doesn't mean 'therefore god' by default. Can you imagine if medicine took that approach? In the days when your mythical tales were written, no one had a remote clue of the existence of microorganisms. They attributed microorganism caused illnesses, to demons and sin.

Your master

More projection? Just because you have a master, (and are part of that whole mentality and mindset), doesn't mean everyone does. And the fact that you spout such garbage, even after I made clear my position, indicates that you are lying for Jesus again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, one of the questions that science would ask is where is the scientific evidence for this creator that you speak of? Only then can science recognise any authority of this creator.

So where is the evidence for this God that you invoke?

God is transcendent --- that means He is outside of evidence.

He did, however, leave a paper trail for us to follow.

 

[Naraoia]

God is transcendent --- that means He is outside of evidence.

That's a very convenient claim if you want to tell us why we don't see any evidence for his existence but raises the question of why some people are so sure he/she/it/they exist(s).

He did, however, leave a paper trail for us to follow.

You mean... evidence? Now, does he leave evidence or not? If he doesn't (as you seem to be claiming above), why should anyone think the Bible is his work? If he does, what is that evidence? If the evidence is his "paper trail", why does the Bible constitute evidence? Could it not possibly have been authored by anyone other than God? Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

exactly how is that point been refuted, when evolution and medical science use the data as its way to align itself? If medical science didn't change due to data we would be still bleeding people to rid them of diseases. Its the data that said differently and we listened. it was the data that said evolution happens.

And yet twice more --- from Posts 57 and 89:

This is why I say that [true] scientists are a gift from God, as we Christians [should] hold science up to a higher Standard than atheists do.

This means that [true] scientists and medical doctors, etc. are a gift from God.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a very convenient claim if you want to tell us why we don't see any evidence for his existence but raises the question of why some people are so sure he... exist(s).

It's called faith.

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

You mean... evidence? Now, does he leave evidence or not? If he doesn't (as you seem to be claiming above), why should anyone think the Bible is his work? If he does, what is that evidence? If the evidence is his "paper trail", why does the Bible constitute evidence? Could it not possibly have been authored by anyone other than God? Why?

You're another example of someone who doesn't really know me. Almost every time someone asked me this, I came back with a pic of the Bible. I got so tired of doing that, that I eventually stopped, and started just saying that God is transcendent of physical evidence, which He is.

 

[Skavau]

God is transcendent --- that means He is outside of evidence.

But science deals with evidence. Someone could equally come to a physicist and tell him that the existence of everything ultimately was from Thor. The scientist would rightly ask the person 'Where is your evidence for this? Where is your evidence for Thor?'

The person then could respond 'Aha! Thor is outside of evidence.

Now how convinced do you suspect the scientist would be? Some individual has just come up to him and proposed that Thor created the universe. The individual does not provide any evidence or reasoning, he just asserts. Science is not built with assertions. They have no reason to recognise or deal with any assertion of 'God did it' anymore than they have with Thor doing it.

He did, however, leave a paper trail for us to follow.

So now you're saying there is evidence of God in the form of a paper trail. Do elaborate.

 

[AV1611VET]

But science deals with evidence. Someone could equally come to a physicist and tell him that the existence of everything ultimately was from Thor. The scientist would rightly ask the person 'Where is your evidence for this? Where is your evidence for Thor?'

The person then could respond 'Aha! Thor is outside of evidence.

Indeed.

Now how convinced do you suspect the scientist would be?

Hopefully, he wouldn't be convinced.

Some individual has just come up to him and proposed that Thor created the universe. The individual does not provide any evidence or reasoning, he just asserts. Science is not built with assertions. They have no reason to recognise or deal with any assertion of 'God did it' anymore than they have with Thor doing it.

There's a big difference though. Thor doesn't have nearly the backing that God does.

1. Where are Thor's followers?
2. What nation was built around Thor's written words?

This earth has seen two superpowers emerge, both collectively claiming the existence of Jehovah --- and both in existence and going strong today. Can Thor top that?

So now you're saying there is evidence of God in the form of a paper trail. Do elaborate.

​

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

It's called faith.

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]



You're another example of someone who doesn't really know me. Almost every time someone asked me this, I came back with a pic of the Bible. I got so tired of doing that, that I eventually stopped, and started just saying that God is transcendent of physical evidence, which He is.

If God is transcendent of physical evidence how can the bible a physical object made by physical beings be evidence of him?

 

[AV1611VET]

If God is transcendent of physical evidence how can the bible a physical object made by physical beings be evidence of him?

Oh, man ---

REPETITION, Repetition, repetition, repetition ... ad infinitum