Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[kenblaster5000]

Its not a frog. Its a half fish and half amphibian. basically the death blow to the video posted earlier. It is a living transitional species, that many creationists wish did not exist because it blows their unfounded claims right out of the water

Darn, good poster. I am just learning about this argument, so don't think of it as a huge victory. Is there truly any proof that this is an evolutionary step between a fish and a frog? How would this prove God did not create all living things?

 

[kenblaster5000]

None of this really shakes my faith a whole deal. His Holy Spirit still speaks to me, I have visions and dreams, and the like. He has promised that those who believe, these signs will follow: speak with new tongues, cast out demons, deadly things will not harm us, and we shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. Most of those have operated in and around my life. In a way, we can be a product of our environment. I am cultivated at the church I attend. If I get around the prayer group I get cultivated in prayer, intercession, prophecy, tongues, interpretation. See, my faith is not easily shaken. You that hang around evolution, you are cultivated into that, those who hang around in cults, guess what they are cultish, hang out with jehovah's witnesses, you become more like them. That is a revelation about cultivation. Whatever we allow to go into our ears and eyes, goes into our heart and eventually bears fruit for others to see.

 

[kenblaster5000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1xC1hTNht4

 

[3sigma]

Again, I am not as skeptical as you.

The main differences between sceptics and religious believers are in their motivation and the way they form and maintain their conclusions or beliefs.

In their search for answers, sceptics tend to be driven by curiosity. Religious believers tend to be driven by their emotions, particularly fear and anxiety.

Sceptics generally reach conclusions based on multiple, independent lines of sound, objective evidence and sound logic. Religious believers generally acquire their beliefs based on logical fallacies, misapprehensions, personal experiences, feelings, anecdotes, weak evidence or none at all.

Sceptics’ conclusions are usually tentative and provisional. Religious beliefs are often held with intractable, absolute certainty.

The problem is that the methods used by religious believers tend to result in erroneous conclusions, “God did it” being a case in point.

 

[Skaloop]

I am not as skeptical as you.

And I'm not as gullible as you.

 

[MoonLancer]

Darn, good poster. I am just learning about this argument, so don't think of it as a huge victory. Is there truly any proof that this is an evolutionary step between a fish and a frog? How would this prove God did not create all living things?

If evolution were true how would this prove God wrong or was somehow not involved?

 

[MoonLancer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1xC1hTNht4

good post

 

[Jnwaco]

Great video.

 

[3sigma]

Great video.

However, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the theory of evolution proves that your God doesn’t exist. Most non-believers would argue there is simply no sound reason to believe your God exists. What the theory of evolution shows is that the true explanation for the diversity of life we see on the planet today is not “God did it”. In fact, “God did it” has never been the true explanation for anything at all. There are many times when “God did it” has been shown to be a false explanation, but not once has it ever been shown to be a true explanation.

 

[kenblaster5000]

Mark 16:15-18

15. And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Jesus Christ said it, and it has been done.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the theory of evolution proves that your God doesn’t exist. Most non-believers would argue there is simply no sound reason to believe your God exists. What the theory of evolution shows is that the true explanation for the diversity of life we see on the planet today is not “God did it”. In fact, “God did it” has never been the true explanation for anything at all. There are many times when “God did it” has been shown to be a false explanation, but not once has it ever been shown to be a true explanation.

That's because anything that gets in the way is summarily dismissed or labeled 'evidence pending'.

Case in point: the Flood --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the Exodus --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the conquest of Canaan --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the virgin birth of Christ --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: Jesus walking on water --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the Resurrection --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: speaking in tongues --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the division of the years in B.C. and A.D. --- it would not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the return of Israel to her homeland --- it would not have happened sans God.

When you summarily dismiss so much written history, is it any wonder you're claiming: 'not once has it ever been shown to be a true explanation'?

 

[Skaloop]

Mark 16:15-18

15. And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Jesus Christ said it, and it has been done.

Well, the bits in red haven't exactly been done.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's because anything that gets in the way is summarily dismissed or labeled 'evidence pending'.

Case in point: the Flood --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the Exodus --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the conquest of Canaan --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the virgin birth of Christ --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: Jesus walking on water --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the Resurrection --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: speaking in tongues --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the division of the years in B.C. and A.D. --- it would not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the return of Israel to her homeland --- it would not have happened sans God.

When you summarily dismiss so much written history, is it any wonder you're claiming: 'not once has it ever been shown to be a true explanation'?

Because it hasn't -- sans Bible, how much of that actually happened?

 

[sandwiches]

That's because anything that gets in the way is summarily dismissed or labeled 'evidence pending'.

Case in point: the Flood --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the Exodus --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the conquest of Canaan --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the virgin birth of Christ --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: Jesus walking on water --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the Resurrection --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: speaking in tongues --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the division of the years in B.C. and A.D. --- it would not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the return of Israel to her homeland --- it would not have happened sans God.

First off, you'd have to show that it did indeed happened. Second, unless you're clairvoyant or a god yourself (which you seem to suggest at times) you cannot say with any certainty whether those things would've happened without a god.

When you summarily dismiss so much written history, is it any wonder you're claiming: 'not once has it ever been shown to be a true explanation'?

You mean so much written material without supporting evidence. The Iliad has a lot of supporting historic evidence for much of it, but can we believe all of it without evidence? No. Same with the Bible. Some truth does not make the whole book true, regardless of any special pleading from you.

Once I asked you to show something that can verifiable support the Bible in its entirety. Your response was 'Israel.' When I asked you to elaborate, you couldn't. Much like your claim that faith has 'revised' science and then you couldn't back it up. It's a common pattern with you, AV. You can't seem to back up your statements very well.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's because anything that gets in the way is summarily dismissed or labeled 'evidence pending'.

Case in point: the Flood --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the Exodus --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the conquest of Canaan --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the virgin birth of Christ --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: Jesus walking on water --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the Resurrection --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: speaking in tongues --- it could not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the division of the years in B.C. and A.D. --- it would not have happened sans God.

Case in point: the return of Israel to her homeland --- it would not have happened sans God.

When you summarily dismiss so much written history, is it any wonder you're claiming: 'not once has it ever been shown to be a true explanation'?

Should i start quoting mythology too and list would could not have happened as an argument for why x is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

First off, you'd have to show that it did indeed happened.

No, I wouldn't --- it was already confirmed by those who were there.

What you're suggesting is God show up every time someone hollers 'no evidence for...'

In John 9, when Jesus healed the blind man, the Pharisees (scientists) got ahold of him and asked how he received his sight.

"Jesus did it" was his reply --- and what happened?

After he was interrogated, they called his parents and interrogated them, then they called this man back and interrogated him a second time.

And they still ended up not believing.

Now why didn't God (Jesus), Who was just a mile or so away, show up and, for the sake of those scientists just say, "Bring me another blind man, and I'll show you what I did"?

The moral of the story is: Don't expect God to come back here and part the Red Sea again, let you scientists crucify Him again to demonstrate His resurrection, walk on water in front of TV cameras, and placate you unbelievers with repeat performances.

It's not gonna happen --- God is not gong to stoop to your demands.

 

[AV1611VET]

Should i start quoting mythology too and list would could not have happened as an argument for why x is true.

You can quote any diabolical mimicry you want --- just don't expect us Bible-believers to fall for it.

Mythology fools you guys --- not us --- we know the difference.

 

[Skaloop]

Now why didn't God (Jesus), Who was just a mile or so away, show up and, for the sake of those scientists just say, "Bring me another blind man, and I'll show you what I did"?

I dunno, why didn't he? He could have (allegedly).

 

[kenblaster5000]

Have you ever gone fishing? You have a rod, a reel , some bait, and a hook. Sometimes with these ingredients you just might catch a fish.

Matthew 4:19

And He sayeth unto them, Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dunno, why didn't he? He could have (allegedly).

Because He wasn't here to put on a rodeo show --- He had a job to do, and He took it seriously.