Essentially, is this the position of a large # of people?

[Tau]

Today at 09:54 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #38


I am rather confused by your question.
What would my understanding of Gods creation and His eternal plan for it have to do with YOUR ''concept of randomness"?

Is this where you are about to break out your overly-intelligent, scientific sounding vocabulary to pound me into a smouldering pool of quivering, brainless primordial goo?

Hey, he just asked for your definition of natural selection.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 08:45 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #33

A quote from Stephan Hawking himself:

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous… I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."

And here's another -

"if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

 

[Nathan David]

Today at 12:51 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #8

I encourage you to get a group of 5,000 or so random persons together and proceed to tell them that their ancestor is a simple protein. They will either laugh out loud or walk slowly and cautiously away from the crazy guy

Why? What's so crazy about that?

Incidentally, Galileo got a similar reception 500 years ago when he claimed the earth revolved around the sun. He turned out to be right. Science isn't a popularity contest.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 03:34 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #28

There is a better, more likely, more probable way, that is Intelligent Design.

So where'd the Designer come from then?

 

[Arikay]

Follower: Do you have a purpose here other than to tell us we are all stupid and to attempt to bash us with the bible?

Well, anyway, here are a couple links that will help you understand those, scientific terms.

www.dictionary.com
www.wikipedia.org

Today at 12:54 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #38


I am rather confused by your question.
What would my understanding of Gods creation and His eternal plan for it have to do with YOUR ''concept of randomness"?

Is this where you are about to break out your overly-intelligent, scientific sounding vocabulary to pound me into a smouldering pool of quivering, brainless primordial goo?

 

[seebs]

Today at 02:07 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #20

Theories aside ... and all that has been presented here are, in essence, theories and/or story telling with very little evidence (none of you can deny this),

Sure we can. Here we go: "I deny it". I have seen a great deal of convincing evidence for common descent.

I think that < 90% of people will have a very hard time actually believing that a masterpiece such as a human being came from a single-celled organism.

Yes, much less than 90%. It's "fundamentalists in the U.S.", almost exclusively. Everyone else has long since moved on.

Meanwhile, go back 500 years, and a great number of ignorant people who thought the Bible was a book about science thought the sun moved around the earth.

I am sorry. I just will never believe, and rightly so, that the wonders of my body's 75,000,000,000,000 interacting cells ... my morality, reason, and humanity ... came from something as miniscule and simple as a single cell. Man did not invent God, God invented man.

Well, you're welcome to not believe it. You may, if you wish, believe *anything you want*.

However, when you tell lies about people who believe otherwise, then you're getting into the territory of things you oughtn't to do. Doesn't the God you believe in command you not to bear false witness? Mine does. And refusing to take even a little time to learn about positions before attacking the people who hold them is certainly a kind of false witness.

(edit: fix vbcode)

 

[Taffsadar]

Today at 08:54 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #38
Is this where you are about to break out your overly-intelligent, scientific sounding vocabulary to pound me into a smouldering pool of quivering, brainless primordial goo?

Nope the action has already been. He showed you paranoia and actual uncertainess of your beliefs with a simple question.

 

[Quath]

Today at 12:19 PM Bruno said this in Post #25

So this is how you came up with NOTHING=EVERYTHING? I humbly apologize, but I am still VERY confused.

The way I see it is that if you put all the matter/energy together, it would warp spacetime and itself out of existance.&nbsp; So all together, everything in our universe integrates to nothing.

Another way of looking at it could be that energy/matter is the binding energy in keeping a 4D spacetime universe warped into nothingness.

Of course, this is just my way of looking at it.

Scott (Quath)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Follower of Christ, since you seem easily puzzled, let me walk you through the question slowly.

1) In post #28, Truth in Faith wrote, "There are physicists, cosmologists, biologists, astronomers, chemists, and mathematicians that will laugh at random purposelessness."

2) I noted that Truth in Faith was repeating a common creationist misconception about evolution being a random process and pointed out that this misconception is proof that he/she doesn't understand what natural selection is.

3) You asserted, "I believe he has a true understanding of what you call 'natural selection', as do all who take God at His word."

4) I then asked you to give me your definition of natural selection as well as some sort of argument in favor of its being random, as you evidently agree with TiF it is.

Got that, little clubber? I'm asking you to define natural selection so we can judge whether you have any idea what you're talking about.

Still confused?

 

[Truth in Faith]

I can't argue anymore. I need to be doing more constructive things with my time. A great internet guys somewhere off in cyberspace once said: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded."

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Yes, more constructive things like reading a textbook on evolution so you don't make fundamental conceptual mistakes, e.g., evolution being random.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 04:29 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #50

I can't argue anymore. I need to be doing more constructive things with my time. A great internet guys somewhere off in cyberspace once said: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded."

Well, some people choose to back out gracefully and others do not.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 04:36 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #52



Well, some people choose to back out gracefully and others do not.

At least he drew a crowd..

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"random purposelessness"

Gee, I don't recall saying that. Did I say everything was random? Did I say life had no purpose?

I don't look at photosynthesis or a hemoglobin molecule or the ATP cycle and say "holy cow, how complex it must have been designed by an intelligent being". That does not make me think that it was all random. Spontaneous, maybe. Inevitable, possibly. I see God in the fact that all this can arise from what we consider to be nothing.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Bruno, I don't really pretend to understand that so well that I can explain it. However, many researchers in the field of cosmology concur with that theory. There are a number of good books out on the subject. "The Universe in a Nutshell", "The whole Shebang" (both of which I have, but have not yet read thouroughly), the Encyclopedia of the Universe" (currently reading) and "A brief History of the Universe".

IF it is something you are interested in I would suggest a trip to your library.

 

[Taffsadar]

Today at 09:29 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #50

I can't argue anymore. I need to be doing more constructive things with my time. A great internet guys somewhere off in cyberspace once said: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded."

Then it gotta be really bad when you loose. Luckily you hopefully didn't loose, instead you got better educated.

 

[seebs]

Today at 03:29 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #50

I can't argue anymore. I need to be doing more constructive things with my time. A great internet guys somewhere off in cyberspace once said: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded."

You never argued, you just lied about what other people said and expected them to thank you for it. No surprise.

At least you ceded the point, and granted that you *did* lose the argument. Yay! God's truth will eventually win out over the "sky-fairy with magic wand" model of creation.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 05:43 PM seebs said this in Post #57



You never argued, you just lied about what other people said and expected them to thank you for it. No surprise.

At least you ceded the point, and granted that you *did* lose the argument. Yay! God's truth will eventually win out over the "sky-fairy with magic wand" model of creation.

I dont think he actually conceded.
He just got tired of presenting the truth to people who think that by overanalysing scripture with thier 482 pound egos and somewhat ''higher'' educations they think they can change the fact that God did EXACTLY what He said He did in the exact amount of days He said He did it in.

Hows THAT for a run-on sentence?

You guys kill me.

A very ignorant thing that atheists tried with me is assume that THEY win if I choose to not play their boneheaded game anymore.
If a 6 day'er gives up on presenting his arguement/debate, trust me, its NOT because he lost the issue.
Its because he grew tired of trying to get ''christians'' to stop saying that the REAL God who says He did it in 6 days is a liar.

I gave up on evolutionist atheists because they want to believe thier lie just as anyone else (if the shoe fits...) who believes that evolution is fact does.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:57 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #58

He just got tired of presenting the truth to people who think that by overanalysing scripture with thier 482 pound egos and somewhat ''higher'' educations they think they can change the fact that God did EXACTLY what He said He did in the exact amount of days He said He did it in.

So... someone with a basic understanding of the Bible knows more about His Creation than people who actually make careers out of studying it?

And you want to talk egos...

 

[Arikay]

Well, no one will take you seriously if you consider all atheism and evolution the same thing, or if you consider all evolutionists atheists or if you consider evolution an atheist creation, etc.