Fairytale?

[Aron-Ra]

I enjoy the, Lord, yes I do. He's Great!

Not according to the Bible, he ain't. Good thing he not real!

 

[Aron-Ra]

This is my point. While not all people know God, it is inherent in ALL people that there is a God.

Nope.

It is a part of all creation. Even an atheist is not apart from this. They must work to remove it from their lives and continually seek to fill the void with as many other things as they can...but...only the one true God, our Creator, can truly fill that void. This proves the existence of God.

My family told me there was a god. They insisted there was, and they forced me to try and figure a place in my inherent world view for how such a thing could be. I wrestled with this for decades. There was just no way to make sense of anything if you try to squeeze a god into it. But if you didn't force God into the picture, then everything made sense on its own.

My son had the same problem I did. My mother was my babysitter when he was very young, and she force-fed him all kinds of religious garbage on video despite my objections, I might add. One day, when he was about five, he waited til grandma had gone out of hearing range, and whispered to me, "Dad, how did God just MAKE stuff?" I knew exactly what was going on in his head, cuz I had so been there! So I leaned close and whispered back, "He didn't."

You could see the relief was over my son's face -exactly the same way it was with me when I reached the same conclusion for the same reason. If there is a god, then nothing makes any sense anymore. The universe works fine on its own. It doesn't need any magic invisible ghosts behind the scenes, and it doesn't make sense to try and imagine such things anyway.

 

[Aron-Ra]

God did it is just as much of an explantion as "I" did it or "you" did it. If I or you did something one can say "I" did it or "you" did it. Well, in just the same way when God does something we can explain that "God" did it!

Whether you did it, or I did it, or God did it, just saying that doesn't explain anything. How does that account for say, your toenails? Why do you have them? Evolution explains that, and millions of other things. Your excuse doesn't explain squat about diddly.

 

[The Bellman]

Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

No, I just correct your falsehoods.

 

[FoeHammer]

And what I meant was sensibilities held in common. I'd go with your defintion -because you've provided a citation which disproves mine. That's what you're supposed to do, and that's what I did when I proved that faith doesn't simply equal "trust" but is either trust, confidence, or belief which is also held in the condition of complete and stoic conviction even without any supportive evidence. I provided every citation available for that term, yet you still refuse to concede any error no matter how soundly you're disproved. Just look at the topic of this thread for example. Again, I showed that Genesis meets all of the criteria of a fable, and evolution meets none. But you refuse to admit that, and reject my evidence without reason, and provide no counter evidence of your own. So if I go with your definition of 'common sense', then I have it and you don't.

My faith simply equals trust. I have made no error and so have nothing to concede.
God is supernatural for whom all things are possible. Evolution is natural and as such, in order to explain the origin of man in particular and life in general, it requires a very vivid imagination, a ton of assumptions and a denial of common sense.

Also simply saying "common sense" without providing any specific criteria [for determining whether something is impossible] is just another way of saying "cuz I said so" and allowing shirk accountability by moving the still-undefined goal posts whenever you deem necessary.

I think it would be best if you just provided evidence of something coming from nothing since you are apparently having such difficulty with the common sense thing then we, and others, may be able to ascertain who it is that really has any.

(1) that sacred scriptures were written by a god rather than the actual human authors,

Inspired by God, written by “actual human” authors.

(2) that any human's interpretation of their various and conflicting sacred scriptures should, or even could, be considered infallibly or inerrently accurate,

One cannot correctly interpret scripture without the Holy Spirit.

(3) that perspectives opposed to faith and religion somehow still require faith as religion,

Faith as trust is something we all demonstrate to one degree or another almost daily in our lives.

(4) that accepting evolution requires the rejection of theism, if not all other religious or spiritual beliefs as well,

As a Christian I am concerned only with Christianity (the teachings of Jesus Christ). Jesus validated the Old Testament (He was the fulfillment of it). Evolution is contrary to a straightforward reading of the Genesis account of creation and I fail to see how anyone can reconcile the two.

(5) that evolution explains the origin of life, the universe, and everything -rather than just how lineages diversify.

It’s a black and white argument as far as I am concerned between the “theist” and the atheist. I am just doing what the atheist is not intellectually honest enough to do and that is to make the connection between the origin of the universe all the way through to the origin and evolution of life.

(6) that support for evolution is waning among scientists,

I have never made this claim and couldn’t care less whether it is or not. My faith is not dependant on the majority opinion of scientists.

(7) that no evidence of evolution exists, or that it is invalid,

Observation and repeatable experimentation, all you have in this regard is what you like to refer to as “macro-evolution” which is, in fact, more accurately described as variation within obvious kinds.

(8) that evidence for creationism actually does exist somewhere and is valid,

I believe that the evidence for creation is all around and within us.

(9) that no transitional or intermediate species have ever been found,

That something looks transitional is insufficient to persuade me that it is transitional, you, on the other hand, are obviously more easily persuaded.

(10) that macroevolution isn't what it is, and has never been observed

If by macro-evolution you mean variation within an obvious kind then yes, it has been observed, if you mean variation within an obvious kind to the point of producing an obviously different kind then no it has never been observed.

(11) That the Bible is the only supposedly "sacred" doctrine out there, as if there weren't any Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, or Zoroastrian scriptures making the same claims of divine inspiration and authority.

I do not deny that others have their own but as a Christian The Bible is the only scared scripture I am interested in.

(12) That it is possible for humans to honestly claim to "know" anything which they believe on faith.

My wife says she loves me but how can I know that she does? Initially, because I know that I love her, I put my faith (trust) in her word and over time, and through experience, she consistently demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, that she loves me. I am at a point now (after 27 years) where I can say, with absolute confidence, that I know my wife loves me, I trust her implicitly and my faith has been vindicated. For me it is the same with what God says through His Word, He has demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) His love for me throughout my life in both the “good” and the “bad” times and I can say, with no less confidence, that I know God loves me. Faith (trust) is the foundation upon which, through my love of God and His love of me, the truth of His existence is built.

To name just a few out of many.

In response to just a few out of many(?).

You look at anything and everything and call it "creation". And because you assume it was created, you assume there was a creator, and of course you assume that creator was the only one you've ever been told about, the one from the dominant religion where you grew up.

You presume too much with regards to where and how I grew up. My father (now deceased) was an atheist, my mother and step-father are atheists.

I do not compile unwarranted assumptions atop unquestioned assumptions. I know that everything we believe logically has to be wrong about something somewhere.

Well I’m questioning this assumption and whether you can know anything of the sort based upon it.

So it is best not to believe anything without reservation,

This is a matter of personal opinion and one that I do not share.

and it is foolish to believe anything without good reason,

I have outlined my “good” reasons above.

reasons which can be tested and objectively verified in the absense of faith.

If you are telling me that personal experience does not count for anything in the establishment of our beliefs then you are more naïve than I had hitherto considered you to be.

Because faith is naught but a means autodeception which offers no way to discover the real truth about anything.

Without faith how did man learn to fly? Without faith how did man come to explore beneath the oceans or visit the moon? If you knew the outcome of an experiment before you performed that experiment what is the point in experimentation? Without initial faith there would be no discovery of “real” truth about anything.

Not to sound like Enigo Montoya, but you keep using that phrase, and I don't think you know what it means. Far from personal incredulity, it is an objectively determinable fact that the word, "magic" is appropriate when discussing superntural agencies exerting influence over the natural world by making things happen which are physically impossible.

The term magic is applicable to natural men who believe that they can manipulate the supernatural and not to God who is supernatural. Where God is concerned you only call it magic because you don’t believe and otherwise cannot explain it which makes it an argument from personal incredulity just as I have said.

The 'cuz I said so' thing; how does it work?

It’s supernatural, I’m not. The Bible tells us “God said… and it was so” I don’t know how it works but by faith I know that it did.

So you're either saying that God is physical nature, and physical nature is therefore God, or you're saying that everything which exists now already existed somewhence else before he relocated everything into this universe. Which is it?

I am saying that I believe God to be both (a part of and apart from his creation) just as The Bible tells indicates. I am a believer not the author. Just as you will direct me to the opinions of scientists as an authority I will direct you to The Bible.

FoeHammer.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The universe is still here, and that still wouldn’t explain anything even if God did do it.

This is your explanation of why you think it needs explaining? It says little and tells me nothing (which is a novel variation of your normal practice of saying lots and telling me nothing).

Its not my fault if anything I say exceeds your comprehension. But I will paraphrase: How does "Gopddidit" explain how Goddidit? How does it explain any of the data we see around us? The fossil record? The geologic column? The Hubble ultra-deep field? Your fingernails, hair follicles, impacted wisdom teeth and all the other traits which identify you as an ape? Name anything your excuse explains.

So a simple-mind can come up with the simplest of all excuses, “I dunno musta ben magic”,

Obviously you did but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that you have a simple-mind.

You'll have to do better than that.

OK,
Faith: (1) confidence or trust
Dictionary.com
“Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing,
--Bartleby.com
“complete trust or confidence.
“a firm belief in something
“Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something,
belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence.”
Wikipedia

There, that better describes my faith.

It can't be a "complete" and "firm" trust if it is based on evidence. Faith based on evidence is an oxymoron. But if you want to pretend to base your position on evidence rather than on faith, fine. I've been asking for one single verifiably accurate argument in favor of creationism and/or posatively indicative evidence of that for years and no one had any. We have a long unanswered thread asking for evidence for creationism. In it there was lots of evidence for evolution and some erroneous assertions against it, and a lot of evidence against creationism, but none for it. But you say you have that. Great! What is it?

And this would mean that you also have evidence for God also, where everyone else in the world says one can only believe in him on faith. So if you have evidence of God, not only will you finally be able to convert all the atheists out there, but you'll doubtless earn a Nobel prize in the process. So I'm all ears for that too.

”Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” [Hebrews 11:1]
Read the whole chapter and tell me how many of the individuals mentioned therein had the kind of faith you define in your previous post? In many cases they had direct contact with God. If you are going to attempt to use scripture to support your claims you have to take it as read and if God spoke directly to them then what better proof could they have had for His existence?

Yes, it is a story meant to convince the person hearing it. "Based solely on testimony and authority" remember?

Yes I deny it because it evidently isn’t there, and is only ever promoted by highly questionable persons falsely claiming to be authorities; people who can never support their position and who will never concede their errors but keep on asserting their nonsense anyway.

I’ve warned you already that you are without excuse and here you go giving another one.

Yeah yeah, I know. If I'm naughty, your Santa will put coal in my stocking.

 

[Aron-Ra]

My faith simply equals trust. I have made no error and so have nothing to concede.

You don't get to redefine words to suit your purpose.

God is supernatural for whom all things are possible.

But you just told me you base your belief on evidence. How can that be if you're talking about the supernatural?

Evolution is natural and as such, in order to explain the origin of man in particular and life in general, it requires a very vivid imagination, a ton of assumptions and a denial of common sense.

No, realizing something has happened (and we both agree that this happened) and trying to figure out how it happened -is not a denial of common sense. A denial of common sense is when you assume it was magic.

I think it would be best if you just provided evidence of something coming from nothing since you are apparently having such difficulty with the common sense thing then we, and others, may be able to ascertain who it is that really has any.

You want me to produce evidence of something you believe in but I don't? And you say I would have to do that to prove that I have common sense? What?

(1) that sacred scriptures were written by a god rather than the actual human authors,

Inspired by God, written by “actual human” authors.

Just like all the other supposedly "holy" books to every other god.

(2) that any human's interpretation of their various and conflicting sacred scriptures should, or even could, be considered infallibly or inerrently accurate,

One cannot correctly interpret scripture without the Holy Spirit.

In other words, assume your conclusions and pretend that its absolute truth. That's one of many reasons why it can't be either infallibly or inerrently accurate.

(3) that perspectives opposed to faith and religion somehow still require faith as religion,

Faith as trust is something we all demonstrate to one degree or another almost daily in our lives.

You're still wrong about that, and forever will be.

(4) that accepting evolution requires the rejection of theism, if not all other religious or spiritual beliefs as well,

As a Christian I am concerned only with Christianity (the teachings of Jesus Christ). Jesus validated the Old Testament (He was the fulfillment of it).

Wrong again. Jesus met none of the criteria prophesied of "Imanuel", and he only spoke in parables, which is what Genesis is.

Evolution is contrary to a straightforward reading of the Genesis account of creation and I fail to see how anyone can reconcile the two.

That much is true. Genesis cannot be interpreted literally without disproving itself.

(5) that evolution explains the origin of life, the universe, and everything -rather than just how lineages diversify.

It’s a black and white argument as far as I am concerned between the “theist” and the atheist. I am just doing what the atheist is not intellectually honest enough to do and that is to make the connection between the origin of the universe all the way through to the origin and evolution of life.

So I'm being dishonest by admitting that most evolutionists are Christians and most Christians are evolutionists, including all the pioneers of evolutionary science, and you're being honest by misrepresenting and ignoring that fact?

(6) that support for evolution is waning among scientists,

I have never made this claim and couldn’t care less whether it is or not. My faith is not dependant on the majority opinion of scientists.

Oh that's right. YOUR faith is based on evidence, and science be damned. Right?

(7) that no evidence of evolution exists, or that it is invalid,

Observation and repeatable experimentation, all you have in this regard is what you like to refer to as “macro-evolution” which is, in fact, more accurately described as variation within obvious kinds.

If you had any grasp of what you're talking about, you'd realize that evolution only allows variation within one's lineage or clade, because it is impossible to evolve out of one's ancestry, which is what creationists demand; another strawman. Can you at least admit this one fact and stop demanding something evolution never permitted?

(8) that evidence for creationism actually does exist somewhere and is valid,

I believe that the evidence for creation is all around and within us.

Only if you make a bunch of unquestioned assumptions based on nothing but other assumptions. Evidence, however is objective; it is a set or series of facts indicative of, or explicable by, only one scenario over any other. I would bet you don't have even one such fact in your favor. So whatcha got?

(9) that no transitional or intermediate species have ever been found,

That something looks transitional is insufficient to persuade me that it is transitional, you, on the other hand, are obviously more easily persuaded.

Says the man who believes in magic invisible ghosts for no reason. No, I am definitely harder to convince than you. But if both sides of this issue share the same rigid and specific definition, then you don't get to change it, and I'll adhere to that too. And we do; even young earth creationists accept the following biological definition:

“A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...”
--WasDarwinRight.com

I have a list of hundreds of examples which meet all these criteria; acanthostega, rahonavis, Dryopithecus, Procyonosuchus, Solenodonsaurus, and myriad others. Do you admit this? Or if you do not, which ones fail on which points?

(10) that macroevolution isn't what it is, and has never been observed

If by macro-evolution you mean variation within an obvious kind then yes, it has been observed, if you mean variation within an obvious kind to the point of producing an obviously different kind then no it has never been observed.

An "obviously different kind" would be a new species, but it would have to be one that adhered to a cladistic phylogeny. So it would be a new "kind" of whatever "kind" its parents were. What did you think macroevolution was? And give a specific example. What is a "kind"? I challenge you to list any two species which science thinks are closely-related, but which you say magically created unrelated to anything else.

(11) That the Bible is the only supposedly "sacred" doctrine out there, as if there weren't any Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, or Zoroastrian scriptures making the same claims of divine inspiration and authority.

I do not deny that others have their own but as a Christian The Bible is the only scared scripture I am interested in.

Just bare that in mind when you speak the "word of God" as if there was only one source for that.

(12) That it is possible for humans to honestly claim to "know" anything which they believe on faith.

My wife says she loves me but how can I know that she does? Initially, because I know that I love her, I put my faith (trust) in her word and over time, and through experience, she consistently demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, that she loves me. I am at a point now (after 27 years) where I can say, with absolute confidence, that I know my wife loves me, I trust her implicitly and my faith has been vindicated.

Then its not faith, because faith is not just 'trust', it is either trust, confidence, or belief with the qualifier that it be unquestioned and unreasonable and not based on evidence. But you have evidence of that, as you've just explained.

For me it is the same with what God says through His Word,

It is not "God's" word, it is the word of men pretending to speak for God.

He has demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) His love for me throughout my life in both the “good” and the “bad” times and I can say, with no less confidence, that I know God loves me. Faith (trust) is the foundation upon which, through my love of God and His love of me, the truth of His existence is built.

This faith you speak of, which you admit is "complete" and "firm" is also not based on evidence but on subjective emotional assumptions instead.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You look at anything and everything and call it "creation". And because you assume it was created, you assume there was a creator, and of course you assume that creator was the only one you've ever been told about, the one from the dominant religion where you grew up.

You presume too much with regards to where and how I grew up. My father (now deceased) was an atheist, my mother and step-father are atheists.

So does that mean you do not assume that what you call "creation" was "created"? Or that you do not assume a "creator" behind it? Or do you mean to imply that Christianity was not the dominant religion where you grew up? Just what do you think I presume here?

I do not compile unwarranted assumptions atop unquestioned assumptions. I know that everything we believe logically has to be wrong about something somewhere.

Well I’m questioning this assumption and whether you can know anything of the sort based upon it.

What assumption are you questioning?

So it is best not to believe anything without reservation,

This is a matter of personal opinion and one that I do not share.

Obviously.

and it is foolish to believe anything without good reason,

I have outlined my “good” reasons above.

Where?

reasons which can be tested and objectively verified in the absense of faith.

If you are telling me that personal experience does not count for anything in the establishment of our beliefs then you are more naïve than I had hitherto considered you to be.

Only in your judgement, and you've already revealed huge flaws in that just in this post.

Because faith is naught but a means autodeception which offers no way to discover the real truth about anything.

Without faith how did man learn to fly?

Without faith, but with falsifiable hypotheses under experimentation.

Without faith how did man come to explore beneath the oceans or visit the moon?

Without faith, but with falsifiable hypotheses under experimentation.

If you knew the outcome of an experiment before you performed that experiment what is the point in experimentation?

To demonstrate its accuracy or disprove the point -rather than merely assume it on faith.

Without initial faith there would be no discovery of “real” truth about anything.

No, you have to reject faith to acheive those things. If you just assume your preferred conclusions at the onset and never question and test them, then you'll never discover your errors and can never correct them. Consequently, however wrong you already are is at least how wrong you will forever be.

Not to sound like Enigo Montoya, but you keep using that phrase, and I don't think you know what it means. Far from personal incredulity, it is an objectively determinable fact that the word, "magic" is appropriate when discussing superntural agencies exerting influence over the natural world by making things happen which are physically impossible.

The term magic is applicable to natural men who believe that they can manipulate the supernatural and not to God who is supernatural. Where God is concerned you only call it magic because you don’t believe and otherwise cannot explain it which makes it an argument from personal incredulity just as I have said.

Look, if you don't understand what I'm saying, then it is not MY personal incredulity. Magic is the proper word when it is men manipulating or influencing the supernatural, beit through spell casting (as in Leviticus 14) or even if it is through prayer. But just as a murder is usually called an "assassination" if the victim is especially influential, "magic" is usually referred to as "miracles" when performed by a god.

The 'cuz I said so' thing; how does it work?

It’s supernatural, I’m not. The Bible tells us “God said… and it was so” I don’t know how it works but by faith I know that it did.

No, if its by faith, then you don't even know that; you only believe it. There's a difference.

So you're either saying that God is physical nature, and physical nature is therefore God, or you're saying that everything which exists now already existed somewhence else before he relocated everything into this universe. Which is it?

I am saying that I believe God to be both (a part of and apart from his creation) just as The Bible tells indicates. I am a believer not the author. Just as you will direct me to the opinions of scientists as an authority I will direct you to The Bible.

But we're not talking about what the Bible says; only what you believe it means, and whether it indicates "something from nothing". If all matter in the universe was conjured "into existence", then it was apparently conjured out of non-existence, meaning "something from nothing". Evolution, being quite apart from cosmology and quantum mechanics, doesn't include anything that could be perceived that way.

Which reminds me, evolution can't be perceived as a fairy tale either unless it adheres to all the criteria of that, like each of the fables in Genesis does.

And you still have never listed any criteria for how we can determine whether anything is impossible other that your notion that anyone who wants to know should call you to find out -since the only method of determing that is still whether you say so.

 

[Loudmouth]

So not true! You can know things in your heart!

No, you can't. Your brain is what is responsible for thinking, not your heart.

You can know things in your spirit!

What spirit? Evidence please.

Intuition knows things!

Intuition suspects things. We don't know if intuition is correct until it happens, then we KNOW.

BUT...If you never exercise yourself in these areas you will never become proficient in them. Your knowledge will be limited.

Exercised them for 25 years. No results. In the end, my religious beliefs were just that, beliefs. They were not knowledge. I do limit my knowledge, however. On that you are correct. I limit what I call knowledge to things that are verifiably knowledge. I don't see why this is a problem.

Sometimes you must believe before you know. Everyone does this throughout their lives.

Sometimes you believe something before knowing it, very true. However, that belief is not knowledged. It isn't knowledge until you know it.

There are many things you don't know until you believe them. From simple things to difficult things. You first sit in a chair because you believe it will hold you AFTER you sat in the chair you KNEW it would hold you but at first you had to believe it would.

Whether or not I believe the chair will hold me has nothing to do with the outcome. In fact, I have fallen on my rear a few times even though I believed the chair would hold me.

I have believed these things you mentioned above and now I KNOW they are true. My belief has turned into knowledge. That is a simple fact of life. Happens every day!

Beliefs can only turn into knowledge once they are tested by objective means. Once this is done they are no longer beliefs, and in being so you should be able to objectively demonstrate this knowledge to others.

Billions of people making up the same thing is against the odds and you know it. It is an indicator that God exists.[/COLOR]

Billions of people repeating the same things is ver probable. I know of no one who knew of Jesus without first being introduced to christianity.

Oh yes it does every day.

That's strange. No matter how much I want to win the lottery I never seem to win. How do you explain that? No matter how much I want to float in mid-air it just doesn't seem to work. Why is that?

The fact of the matter is that reality does not conform to our wishes. No matter what we claim reality is not forced to change itself to fit our claims.



My life is evidence for God and millions more like me. Israel is evidence for God and every prophecy fulfilled. Miracles are evidence for God. Etc. Etc.

God is not limited to a human body.

What God? Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

God did it is just as much of an explantion as "I" did it or "you" did it. If I or you did something one can say "I" did it or "you" did it. Well, in just the same way when God does something we can explain that "God" did it!

Let's say I walked in the room and there is broken glass and milk all over the floor. I ask you what happend and you say "I did it". My next question is "How did it happen" and you would probably be able to give me a run down of the events that led to the broken glass and milk on the floor. Now, what if I ask the same question for "God did it"? The answer is "it's magic". That is not an explanation. That's what I tell my kids when they bother me for an explanation, and they know that it is a non-answer. However, creationists seem to think that magic is an explanation, and I just don't see it.

Even Foehammer describes "God Did It" as something man can not describe. If you can't describe it it isn't an explanation, plain and simple.

 

[FoeHammer]

Of course you're mistaken. I made the prediction in my post # 544, and included a link to the BBC in my explanation of how cosmologists do not believe in "something from nothing" the way creationists do. Then in post #675, immediately after that explanation, you proved that you hadn't even read what I wrote by saying that you thought I was talking about abiogenesis. Then when I corrected you, you said you couldn't find it. So I told you which post to look at and pointed out the BBC link to make it easier to find since the link was in a different color.

In the second paragraph of post #544 you said “Of course common sense allowed me to predict the example you would give.” (emphasis added). “Allowed”, past tense, so where, prior to this post, did you make that prediction? It was you who first mentioned the big bang and not I, I simply responded to it once you had given it.
Incidentally I take the BBC less seriously than I do you, posting links to them therefore is pointless.

Well, they don't make up things that aren't there and then worship them. But no, that's not quite what I mean. It is no longer possible for humans to live without science. It is what gave us our 3rd greatest advantage over all other animals, and we can't go back to living without it now.

Hardly consistent with rational thought and logic. To suggest that we are so far removed from nature that we are no longer capable of surviving without that which we never needed for our survival during 99.9% of our alleged evolutionary development is nonsense were it not then I would have to conclude that the evolution of the human capacity for “science” was a major disadvantage and should never have been selected for.

Natural selection obviously can't relate to abiogenesis since it relies on successive generations of inherited traits from which it determines which random mutations will be selected and which ones won't be continued.

My original statement began as follows:

The more you respond to me with stuff like this the more convinced I am that you are wrong with regards to mans evolutionary origin. That a chance chemical reaction triggered a mindless process of mistake after mistake, plus natural selection (whatever that is supposed to mean),

The chance I referred to was in the chemical reaction that allegedly “created” the first life form to which you replied that it wasn’t chance by not paying attention you have confused matters.

Because you and I have very different definitions for that word. Mine is 'something which seems true, but you can't be certain about.' You're obviously using a dictionary who's definitions aren't available where I can find them.

Try dictionary.com

You've just proven my point. You don't realize it, but then, by definition, you couldn't realize it.

My apologies, it should have read: mine wasn’t.

Can you give me any reason to believe that physics or mathematics were any different at any point in the past than they are now? Because otherwise, uniformitarianism at least allows us to figure some things out, and I think that's the real reason you're opposed to it. You're not remotely interested in inquiry. You don't want to know whatever is really; you just wanna believe what you want whether you think its really true or not.

Uniformitarianism is an un-provable assumption and as such anything it allows you to “figure out” about the past is also un-provable and must be accepted by faith.

I said that was his opinion. Arguments from authority are worthless, remember?

That depends on the authority.


[quote]Twisting my words again, are you? I said Christians have admitted they will lie to defend their belief. You asked for an example of that, and I gave it -proving my point. So now you're trying to distort it into an excuse to pretend that it doesn't count.[/quote]

Your original statement:

….. while religion tends to be absolutely wrong about absolutely everything all the time, and even admit they will lie to promote what they "just gotta believe" no matter what. So what choice do I have?

How can I twist what wasn’t there? There is no mention in your original statement of Christians in particular only religion in general. You really should take more care, read and re-read before submitting a reply.

I don't need one. But I do have one. If your god exists then it is entirely his fault that I cannot believe in him. Because not only has he concealed all evidence of himself in every capacity, but he has already shown me a lifetime of profound evidence against everything his supporters claim. That, and he has made sure that his most obvious proponants are all willfully ignorant and/or deliberately dishonest charlatans and confidence men basing all their claims upon falsehoods and perpetuating fraud in the name of your god and other gods just like him.

More unsubstantiated claims.

I mean, c'mon even other Christians begin to question their faith when they listen to you!

I hope so.

Your kind is doing a tremendous service to my cause. Is that "by design" too?

To make an idiot of oneself is a strange cause to have but if I'm helping and you're happy.....

Having myself been designed to think analytically, then your god stacked the deck such that I could not believe as you do without having to forfeit my reason and forget everything I know and can show to be true about science, politics, history, humanities, and sociology. Even then I might also need to suffer a severe stroke or blunt force trauma to the brain in order to believe as you do. If your god exists, then this is the only option he permits me to have.

On the day of judgment you’re going to be one of those who will blame everyone else and ultimately God Himself for your failure.
You are without excuse.

Sure, but obviously, if something is conjured into existence, then it didn't exist before, right? It had to be conjured out of non-existence. I mean, it wasn't changed, existing in one form and then another. No, it went from not existing at all to (poof) there it is. That is, in every respect, something from nothing -even if your favorite magic imaginary friend really did it.

Ignored due to terminology.

FoeHammer.

 

[Inan3]

No, I just correct your falsehoods.

OOO..K

 

[Inan3]

Let's say I walked in the room and there is broken glass and milk all over the floor. I ask you what happend and you say "I did it". My next question is "How did it happen" and you would probably be able to give me a run down of the events that led to the broken glass and milk on the floor. Now, what if I ask the same question for "God did it"? The answer is "it's magic". That is not an explanation. That's what I tell my kids when they bother me for an explanation, and they know that it is a non-answer. However, creationists seem to think that magic is an explanation, and I just don't see it.

Even Foehammer describes "God Did It" as something man can not describe. If you can't describe it it isn't an explanation, plain and simple.

What is "magic" is to say that everything came from nothing, such as a big bang that happened from things that came from nothing and then evolved into the the most incredible designed beings that even the greatest of all scientists, geniouses, superbrains on this earth, all working together, cannot figure out. They keep saying but we're getting close. We're only a few billion years away from knowing... I dare say you wouldn't tell your kids that's what happened to the car you drive or the computer you use, or the appliances that are around your home and work, so why would you tell them you believe that those who invented these things, and those creatures that do amazing feats, etc. were all made that way. One day a big bang just happened from what we don't know and where it came from we don't know, we think it came from nothing. ...... Now THAT is "magical", THAT is mythical. You know if you really would let yourself think about it that there is no way it could have happened that way. That way of thinking is the only fairytale on this thread.

The only way that ANY of this can be true is by the intelligent design of a higher Being than you or I. Denial won't make it any less real.

 

[Vene]

What is "magic" is to say that everything came from nothing, such as a big bang that happened from things that came from nothing and then evolved into the the most incredible designed beings the even the greatest of all scientists, geniouses, superbrains on this earth, all working together cannot figure out. They keep saying but we're getting close. We're only a few billion years away from knowing... I dare say you wouldn't tell your kids that's what happened to the car you drive or the computer you use, or the appliances that are around your home and work, so why would you tell them you believe that those who invented these things, and those creatures that do amazing feats, etc. were all made that way. One day a big bang just happened from what we don't know and where it came from we don't know, we think it came from nothing. ...... Now THAT is "magical", THAT is mythical. You know if you really would let yourself think about it that there is no way it could have happened that way. That way of thinking is the only fairytale on this thread.

The only way that ANY of this can be true if by the intelligent design of a higher Being than you or I. Denial won't make it any less real.

Look at the field of strawmen I found. The Big Bang theory doesn't state that something came from nothing, it says that the energy that is always present underwent reactions to form matter. This matter underwent various nuclear reactions to form the elements. The elements reacted with each other as per their number of protons, electrons, and the configuration of their electrons to form more stable compounds. Eventually under the right conditions self-replicating molecules were formed on a planet. These were the first living things. As they lived those with the best traits survived and yielded offspring. Due to various methods natural selection pushed them towards certain traits considering their current genetic code and their environment. Many designs failed leading to their extinction, but some survived leading to more variation. This variation, along with an ever-changing Earth lead to a primate with a developed brain and a capacity for logic and abstract thought along with an innate social desire. These apes made tools and eventually founded our society.

This is an extremely simplified version of what happened. If you want to know more research what the big bang is, nuclear reactions, chemical equilibrium, plate tectonics, paleontology, anthropology, taxonomy, natural selection, and genetics. Please look at what scientists actually say and the data instead of what some laymen state. In fact, don't take what I said for fact. Research it yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is "magic" is to say that everything came from nothing, such as a big bang that happened from things that came from nothing

The Big Bang theory does not state that something came from nothing. Stop projecting your beliefs onto others.

and then evolved into the the most incredible designed beings that even the greatest of all scientists, geniouses, superbrains on this earth, all working together, cannot figure out.

Life did not come from nothing, and no one is claiming that "nothing" evolved. Also, scientsits are figuring out how life works.

They keep saying but we're getting close. We're only a few billion years away from knowing...

At least they are honest enough to admit that they don't know instead of making up stories.

I dare say you wouldn't tell your kids that's what happened to the car you drive or the computer you use, or the appliances that are around your home and work, so why would you tell them you believe that those who invented these things, and those creatures that do amazing feats, etc. were all made that way.

Yes, why would I tell them that the ancestors of all life were magically poofed into existence? Good point. Thankfully, I don't.

One day a big bang just happened from what we don't know and where it came from we don't know, we think it came from nothing.

Actually, physicists think it came from something.

...... Now THAT is "magical", THAT is mythical. You know if you really would let yourself think about it that there is no way it could have happened that way. That way of thinking is the only fairytale on this thread.

And yet, this is exactly what you believe. You believe that everything around us was magically poofed into being from nothing by a supernatural deity that you can not evidence. Go figure.

The only way that ANY of this can be true is by the intelligent design of a higher Being than you or I.

Why, because you say so? Sorry, but incredulity is not an argument, it only illustrates the limits of your imagination. Lord Kelvin was a really smart dude but he claimed one day that no one would ever build a heavier-than-air craft. 10 years later he was proved wrong. You may accept proclamations from a pulpit, but I do not.

 

[Inan3]

No, you can't. Your brain is what is responsible for thinking, not your heart.

Only partially true. My spirit does think and after I'm out of this body I will continue to think and live and love.

What spirit? Evidence please.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Intuition suspects things. We don't know if intuition is correct until it happens, then we KNOW.

Intuition is of the spirit. Conscience is of the spirit.

Exercised them for 25 years. No results. In the end, my religious beliefs were just that, beliefs. They were not knowledge. I do limit my knowledge, however. On that you are correct. I limit what I call knowledge to things that are verifiably knowledge. I don't see why this is a problem.

You exercised your spirit for 25 years? How did you do that? I'd be interested to know because I have learned much by doing that and so have many, many others. Perhaps what you thought was faith was not after all.

Sometimes you believe something before knowing it, very true. However, that belief is not knowledged. It isn't knowledge until you know it.

That's true.

Whether or not I believe the chair will hold me has nothing to do with the outcome. In fact, I have fallen on my rear a few times even though I believed the chair would hold me.

That's true, but my point was that you do act in faith or believe before you know in different circumstances. So it is not so far fetched to do that with God.

Beliefs can only turn into knowledge once they are tested by objective means. Once this is done they are no longer beliefs, and in being so you should be able to objectively demonstrate this knowledge to others.

I agree but though you can do it in this physical realm it is not always seen in the ways you might be demanding to see. Such as, you can see the results of growth but can you actually see when and as it happens. Can you chemical reactions or lack thereof in our bodies? Can you see the wind? The air you breathe? Your thoughts? Your emotions? How do we see? If our brains/bodies weren't limited could we see spirit? Could we hear spirit? Why do animals sense things that we cannot see? Don't put all your money on our limited bodies or in science alone. It's too limiting. That will someday be changed. It's not worth the loss of all that we have prepared for us just to demand that we have to "see" it all now.

The fact of the matter is that reality does not conform to our wishes. No matter what we claim reality is not forced to change itself to fit our claims.

It does all the time even though you don't know it. God's word is continually changing situations and circumstances.

What God? Evidence please.[/

Your Creator. All of Creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only partially true. My spirit does think and after I'm out of this body I will continue to think and live and love.

What spirit? Evidence please.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence. Try again.

Intuition is of the spirit. Conscience is of the spirit.

What spirit? Evidence please.

You exercised your spirit for 25 years? How did you do that? I'd be interested to know because I have learned much by doing that and so have many, many others. Perhaps what you thought was faith was not after all.

I found out that religious exercise is nothing more than running around because other people are running around.

That's true, but my point was that you do act in faith or believe before you know in different circumstances. So it is not so far fetched to do that with God.

But I don't "know" until something happens. I don't know if a chair will hold me or not until I sit in it. I might "believe" that it will hold me, but the chair does not suddenly become stronger just to take my weight. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing, no matter how hard you try to equate the two.

I agree but though you can do it in this physical realm it is not always seen in the ways you might be demanding to see. Such as, you can see the results of growth but can you actually see when and as it happens. Can you chemical reactions or lack thereof in our bodies?

I actually do some of these things in the lab. For instance, I have measured energy intermediates in cultured muscle cells and have observed these pools to change due to exposure to toxins. I can't actually observe these reactions as they happen, but if I include specific controls and use a solid methodology and can very confidently state what is and is not happening. I don't need to "believe" anything because I have the data to back me up.

Can you see the wind?

I can objectively measure it with an anemometer, or use dust particles like they do in wind tunnels.

The air you breathe?

I can sense the resistance of the air I breathe, which is why it takes energy to expand and collapse my lungs.

Your thoughts? Your emotions?

These are subjective experiences that I can not evidence to anyone else. Thoughts and emotions are not objective. If I think that I can fly I don't fly, for some strange reason.

How do we see?

With our eyes.

If our brains/bodies weren't limited could we see spirit? Could we hear spirit?

If the spirit did not exist would we see spirit or hear spirit?

Why do animals sense things that we cannot see?

Because they have better hearing, sight, or olfactory senses.

Don't put all your money on our limited bodies or in science alone. It's too limiting.

Our limited bodies exist. You can't show that the spirit or God exist. Why should I put money on something that doesn't exist?

Limiting yourself to what is real is not a bad thing. Making stuff up and believing it is so is not something to be proud of.

It does all the time even though you don't know it. God's word is continually changing situations and circumstances.

More mumbo-jumbo with zero substance.

Your Creator. All of Creation.

Please evidence this creator.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Only partially true. My spirit does think and after I'm out of this body I will continue to think and live and love.

How do you know this? Are you actually acquainted with spirits that think and love and communicate with you?

Intuition is of the spirit. Conscience is of the spirit.

What about all those neurons that when severely damaged result in dramatic changes in personality and in some cases a loss of conscience? Or just general changes in the person.

I watched my dad, throug the magic of a number of small almost imperceptible strokes turn from an active, intelligent, vibrant man to a semi-zombie who could barely put together a coherent sentence and then who could only answer in single-word responses.

Was his "spirit" injured?

Was the doctor spending too much time looking for underlying causes in the brain when he should have been looking at dad's "spirit-o-graph"?

 

[Inan3]

The Big Bang theory does not state that something came from nothing. Stop projecting your beliefs onto others.

I'm not and I know that the "theory" does not say that BUT AS YOU KNOW for it to have occured it would have had to have had the right components to come together and no one seems to know where those components came from. (Of course, it goes without saying that they don't even know for sure if the BBT was how it happened, either, but by faith they believe it!) AND you don't seem to mind projecting your beliefs on everyone, so I figure "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", and I'll probably continue as long as you do.

Life did not come from nothing, and no one is claiming that "nothing" evolved. Also, scientsits are figuring out how life works.

Oh, I know now that they are not saying that "nothing" evolved, just that no one seems to know where the "first" something came from. There had to be a beginning now didn't there?

At least they are honest enough to admit that they don't know instead of making up stories.

No one is making up stories. God exists whether you can see Him or not. Denial won't make it any less real.

Yes, why would I tell them that the ancestors of all life were magically poofed into existence? Good point. Thankfully, I don't.

But that is exactly what you are telling them when you deny the existence of a Creator. "We just poofed here out of nothing."

You might as well tell them you don't love them either, because you can't see love, therefore, by your standards it must not exist.

Actually, physicists think it came from something.

I'm sure they do!

And yet, this is exactly what you believe. You believe that everything around us was magically poofed into being from nothing by a supernatural deity that you can not evidence. Go figure.

So do you, but you won't admit. You think because you don't call it God or deity then it is more true. Go figure, yourself. At least my beliefs have intelligence behind it.

Why, because you say so? Sorry, but incredulity is not an argument, it only illustrates the limits of your imagination. Lord Kelvin was a really smart dude but he claimed one day that no one would ever build a heavier-than-air craft. 10 years later he was proved wrong. You may accept proclamations from a pulpit, but I do not.

No, because intelligence says so. You are the one who accepts the proclamations of the pulpits of atheism. The only reason that we can fly today is because they copied the design of the Creator and put it to good use. No one came up with the design on their own. The intelligence was already there, and that's all science can do today is discover the already created design, and try to figure it all out. There is no new thing under the sun and the only reason we can even discover these things is because we are made in His image with intelligence. Just because He is infinitly kind to us and His awesome greatness, power and wisdom has been shown to us and is in us to a degree. Don't destroy all that He has for you by cutting Him out of your life. That's not wise nor intelligent.

 

[Vene]

So now you're arguing using God of the Gaps? That is weak. People used to think (and some still do) that disease was caused by demonic possession and was entirely supernatural. Then we found bacteria and viruses. Your god gets more impotent everyday.