Fire

[razeontherock]

because I used to be a Christian myself, so I haven't made anything up, there.

With nothing but twisted nonsense coming from you about what you perceive Christianity to be, I can assure you, you most certainly never had a grasp on the real thing.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm quite happy with my own purpose, to be honest. If God wants me to fulfil a particular purpose, he can arrange that.

Based on your false concept of His omnipotence, or your false premise of His omnibenevolence?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Based on your false concept of His omnipotence, or your false premise of His omnibenevolence?

Neither. If he wants to, he can. God neither needs to love me or be omnipotent to do that. If he can do everything he has done in the Bible, he can arrange for me to fulfil my purpose. He could just change my purpose if that's easier, seeing as he decides it. He doesn't need to be omnibenevolent, he just needs to want to do it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

With nothing but twisted nonsense coming from you about what you perceive Christianity to be, I can assure you, you most certainly never had a grasp on the real thing.

Is it necessary to remind you again that you are not the master of Christianity who knows everything about it? I'm afraid no one can take up a superior position.

 

[Catherineanne]

Your so sweet!

Thanks for the hug!

Any time. Have another.

(Just a tart, really. )

 

[Catherineanne]

So, I'm reading some Sufi material when I came across this tid bit. I found the commentary interesting, particuly in its use of Fire imagery.



"Willpower is the keynote of mastery, and
asceticism is the development of willpower."
-- Hazrat Inayat Khan


Commentary by Hazrat Samuel L. Lewis:

This willpower is love-power and life-power; only, when it
expresses itself as power it is called "will". That is to say,
in love -- true love -- power, intelligence and beauty should
be in equilibrium. When beauty dominates there is adoration
which leads to intoxication, and when power dominates there is
more fire without always more light.

In order that the will power be not destructive, in order that
it be one with intelligence and beauty, the spiritual life is
followed which concentrates everything upon Unity. No doubt
the life in the desert accomplishes it, but that is like
spending all one's time gathering fuel for a fire, which is
used neither to cook food nor to warm others. The real
spiritual asceticism is followed in the midst of the world;
this is nothing but surrender for the purpose of a greater
benefit for oneself and the whole humanity.

.

Thanks for that, dl. I agree with what it says; we have to balance our spiritual lives, in order to achieve true surrender to God's will. Too much sound and fury, and we are unlikely to progress very far.

 

[Ayersy]

It is an increase in understanding which continues to reveal design. Before the advent of the electron microscope, materialists could have sat on their glob of protoplasm postulations. Before we had a proper understanding of structures, Darwinists could have found greater traction with their assertions of vestigiality. We are dropping "junk DNA", and random mutations will soon follow. An increase in knowledge continues to reveal design. Study is encouraged, not shunned. If I were to find a 747 on mars it was designed. Saying it was designed by intelligence does not stop inquiry, does not stop study.

Citation please that an increase in knowledge apparently reveals design.

The human body was designed. Start there.

Why should I start there? There's no reason to, other than if I wanted to think that life was designed in order to fit in with my belief system, which is all creationism is.

You can put it any way you want. Backwards or frontwards. Its called circular logic. In the end, the evidence prevails, and my circle beats your circle. Darwinism will make sense to you. Because it nourishes your belief. But as it stands, bacteria cannot turn into men.

Except my logic isn't circular. Life adapts. That is fact. That's all we're saying. Not that something turned into something else. That life adapts. I'm assuming you at least believe in micro-evolution, (or micro-Darwinism to you, perhaps?) because nearly everyone does, due to the fact it can be seen. Lots of micro-evolution = Macro-evolution. Lots of small changes = REALLY BIG CHANGE. Not difficult to understand. Evolution makes sense to me because IT MAKES SENSE. It has nothing to do with what I believe. I believed evolution was true back when I was a theist, I still believe it now I'm an atheist. It makes sense.

Of course you can. Then we can go from there.

Except for the fact that chance cannot build a man.

Chance affects how life adapts and changes (AKA: Evolves), so in a way, chance does have some bearing in how humans came about, which is completely different thing to building.

Besides, if chance cannot build a man, a non-existent being certainly can't.

Ah. But you cannot see them. The equipment is just evidence for the equipment, right? I mean, there could be a tiny man inside the equipment moving the needle. The radar is just blips on the screen. You have never seen radio waves. You have to see it. Therefore there is no evidence for radio waves. I am using your logic. If the non physical were to become physical, then to you it would stand as evidence for the physical and not the non physical. When you delve detectability,as im sure you would have, begin by detecting the human body,the manifestation of the non physical into the physical. Then when youre ready, we'll study and go into more advanced forms of application and detection of the immaterial, and the fact the the universe exists as only as vibration and frequency. The radio analogy was purposefully used, as you are well aware that the eyes nose and ears are detection devices, protruding from your brain, picking up frequencies, like the antenna protrudes from your radio, doing same. But as it stands, you are here. At the human. So begin here.

You are not using my logic, or any logic, it would seem. You're trying to pretend you're using my logic, that's all. The fact that I can go to a radio station, hear the DJ talking in to the microphone, then go out into my car, and hear the same DJ over my car radio proves that radio waves exist, either that, or there's another bloke, who sounds exactly like the DJ, sitting in the front of my car, and when I go to check my oil, I definitely don't see anyone there. This is also different to anything immaterial in that we have had humans researching radio waves, who all come to the same conclusion, if I wanted to, I could build my own radio, or start my own radio station. I can directly manipulate radio waves, if I so choose. So yeah, still a pretty shoddy analogy.

"Bonk! The engineer designed the computer!" .

Oh please, now you're just being silly. You and I both know it didn't happen like that, it took years of research, documentation, hard work and perseverance to design the first computer. Documentation which can be studied, verified, and replicated by other people. The documentation of the "creation" of man can never be verified or replicated by anybody. The creation of the first computer was far more than just "God created man lol.".

And thats where I debate materialists. A theist will often make the mistake of discussing scripture and the like with a materialist, not realizing that unlike the case of a Muslim or another Christian, you have to come back, all the way back to the starting point, as unlike the aforementioned parties, the materialist has not yet realized that the human system has been created. And this is where they are, this is what they are toying with. Its almost the same with those who call themselves "TE". They have taken up bashing scripture because they believe that you could skip over the beginning, and meet the middle. But the transformation has already begun. Yes, that is where our paths will intersect, at the human body. Your beliefs about religion based on Darwinism, your beliefs about theists based on Darwinism, your beliefs about life based on Darwinism, your beliefs about purpose based on Darwinism, your beliefs about the mind based on Darwinism, does not carry. Man was created. Begin there.

Actually, my beliefs do carry. Sorry. Man wasn't created. Begin there.

Human systems, 747''s, Cars, and robots cannot be assembled through chance. Tests continue to demonstrate this. Design also happens in the real world. And this is what we apply to this degree of complexity and observation derived from testing.

Nobody is talking about anything being assembled. As I have previously said, life adapts through chance. Chance affects everything, including which species thrive, and which go extinct.

Again, you say science then you try to link it with Darwinism. Adaptive feature for example has been discovered in the DNA bio computer. And it only gets more complex, more evidence of design. As we progress.

DNA bio computer? What? Again, complexity does not equal design. Seriously, where is this evidence of design? I keep asking for it, and I am receiving none. Not evidence of complexity. Actual evidence of design.

I'm sure it will. The only problem is we are not waiting for more evidence for Darwinism. We have evidence against it. So keep clinging to it. Signing out.

What evidence do you have against it? Please may we see it? Time and time again in threads all over this forum, creationists have been shown evidence of evolution, and you lot keep ignoring it, because of the simple reason it casts a little doubt over the beginning of the Bible. Creationists are trying to fit the origins of life to fit in with their religious beliefs, rather than everyone else, who is trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with the real world.

 

[Ayersy]

With nothing but twisted nonsense coming from you about what you perceive Christianity to be, I can assure you, you most certainly never had a grasp on the real thing.

I obviously didn't have a grasp on the "real thing", much like yourself, since I was believing in something that isn't there.

 

[Ayersy]

I mentioned this to Sith before, that the world and the Bible contain all the evidence we need, what is important is how we use information, the attitude and motives we have. If you're not intentionally willing to discover God for real then you're consciously deciding to draw that conclusion. Thus, it is your very own decision whether you accept or deny the fact that God exists. Your decision to agree or disagree doesn't change this fact.

Look at the world and the Bible for what they are.

The Earth is a large mass with an atmosphere capable of sustaining life. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Bible: A book. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's only when you start attributing meaning to either object that you are able to jump to other conclusions, I just don't see why there's the need to look at them for being anything more than they really are.

Again, it always seems to come down to how willing someone is to whether or not they can believe in God. This is flawed. It's biased. If you really want to believe in something, you will. This is how people believe ridiculous conspiracy theories which are completely unfounded. However, if you really truly didn't care either way about something, then you are free to look closer at it, and come up with your own opinion, which is what I did.

I used to believe in God, when I was younger. When I started to lose my faith, it wasn't because I wanted to NOT believe. It's because I was becoming unbiased in my opinions of God. It was only then, when I thought about the whole idea of omnipotent beings a little more, that I realised how ridiculous the whole concept is. I didn't want to lose my faith, I remember how horrible it felt undergoing the whole change. This is because I was losing something I had grown attached to. Now, I can look back and say I was attached to something that was false, and I no longer am sad about it.

Will has nothing to do with it. Logic and reason has everything to do with it.

 

[dlamberth]

The Earth is a large mass with an atmosphere capable of sustaining life. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's one way of seeing the Earth. I see it a bit differently. To me the earth is very much alive...So much so that if it dies, we die.

.

 

[Ayersy]

That's one way of seeing the Earth. I see it a bit differently. To me the earth is very much alive...So much so that if it dies, we die.

.

Well, it can't exactly die, but I agree that we need to take care of it. We do rely on the fact that the atmosphere is capable of sustaining life, obviously, so it's in our best interests to make sure that we keep it able to do so, after all, nobody else is gonna take care of it for us.

 

[Greg1234]

Citation please that an increase in knowledge apparently reveals design.

Look it up. If you still believe that the cell is a globule of protoplasm then youre further gone than expected.

Why should I start there? There's no reason to, other than if I wanted to think that life was designed in order to fit in with my belief system, which is all creationism is.

You are not obligated to. Your full adherence to Darwin is priority. But attempting to jump the gun, or assertions about theists and their beliefs which is inherently based on Darwinism will yield a redirection to the fact that random mutation cannot build a man.

Except my logic isn't circular. Life adapts. That is fact. That's all we're saying. Not that something turned into something else. That life adapts. I'm assuming you at least believe in micro-evolution, (or micro-Darwinism to you, perhaps?) because nearly everyone does, due to the fact it can be seen. Lots of micro-evolution = Macro-evolution. Lots of small changes = REALLY BIG CHANGE. Not difficult to understand. Evolution makes sense to me because IT MAKES SENSE. It has nothing to do with what I believe. I believed evolution was true back when I was a theist, I still believe it now I'm an atheist. It makes sense.

You being an atheist and a Darwinist is not a surprise. Science tells us that life adapts. Science also tells us that random mutation is sterile, that DNA is coded with an adaptive feature, and that said process is limited. Your assertion of lots of micro evolution= macro evolution or lots of muscle change = forklift is based firstly on that same Darwinian notion of random mutation. Recognizing muscle change and leaving out the fact that it is not a random process or that it is not unlimited will yield the same rebuttal. You may accuse creationists for not accepting science, but the fact remains that science in its completion reveals only creation. No atheism required.

Chance affects how life adapts and changes (AKA: Evolves), so in a way, chance does have some bearing in how humans came about, which is completely different thing to building.

Besides, if chance cannot build a man, a non-existent being certainly can't.

It doesnt matter to me what you believe or don't believe exists. The fact is chance cannot build a man. Start there.

You are not using my logic, or any logic, it would seem. You're trying to pretend you're using my logic, that's all. The fact that I can go to a radio station, hear the DJ talking in to the microphone, then go out into my car, and hear the same DJ over my car radio proves that radio waves exist, either that, or there's another bloke, who sounds exactly like the DJ, sitting in the front of my car, and when I go to check my oil, I definitely don't see anyone there.

Or the fact that there is a little man in your radio. The lengths presented to escape the facts stands only as a reflection of Darwinism.

This is also different to anything immaterial in that we have had humans researching radio waves, who all come to the same conclusion, if I wanted to, I could build my own radio, or start my own radio station. I can directly manipulate radio waves, if I so choose. So yeah, still a pretty shoddy analogy.

If you were aware of what has been given then you would never have made that comment. But back on topic, the fact is you have never seen radio waves. All you've done is outline a basic test which shows that radio waves are the cause of sound and not little men. We have done the same with random mutation and tests have shown that chance cannot build a man. We have also gone beyond that. Start at the fact that man is created.

Oh please, now you're just being silly. You and I both know it didn't happen like that, it took years of research, documentation, hard work and perseverance to design the first computer. Documentation which can be studied, verified, and replicated by other people. The documentation of the "creation" of man can never be verified or replicated by anybody. The creation of the first computer was far more than just "God created man lol.".

It doesn't matter whether you know how it was done. The fact is your assertions of demeaning the realization that man was created is as viable and relevant as demeaning the realization that the engineer did it.

Actually, my beliefs do carry. Sorry. Man wasn't created. Begin there.

I will. Tests reveal only design. I haven't requested data based on your random mutations assertions. So yes, this is where we will meet.

Nobody is talking about anything being assembled. As I have previously said, life adapts through chance. Chance affects everything, including which species thrive, and which go extinct.

Chance cannot build a 747 a robot, or a man. Test results are equal accros the board.

DNA bio computer? What? Again, complexity does not equal design. Seriously, where is this evidence of design? I keep asking for it, and I am receiving none. Not evidence of complexity. Actual evidence of design.

The first measure of intellignent design of your computer is based on the complexity of said system, and the results of testing which shows that a computer cannot be assembled through chance. Yes, integrated complexity is an indicator of design. So is testing.

What evidence do you have against it? Please may we see it? Time and time again in threads all over this forum, creationists have been shown evidence of evolution, and you lot keep ignoring it, because of the simple reason it casts a little doubt over the beginning of the Bible. Creationists are trying to fit the origins of life to fit in with their religious beliefs, rather than everyone else, who is trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with the real world.

We don't ignore it. In fact we show you guys the rest of science based on adaptation. What we ignore is your request for us to ignore the rest and replace it with Darwinian speculation. I'll pass.

 

[Greg1234]

I mentioned this to Sith before, that the world and the Bible contain all the evidence we need, what is important is how we use information, the attitude and motives we have. If you're not intentionally willing to discover God for real then you're consciously deciding to draw that conclusion. Thus, it is your very own decision whether you accept or deny the fact that God exists. Your decision to agree or disagree doesn't change this fact.

All these guys want is bacteria men. Nothing more.

 

[Delphiki]

Random mutation isn't sterile, outbreeding mutations are.

Mules, for example, are sterile because they are the offspring of a horse and donkey.
If a horse, that is an offspring of two horses, happens to be born with a longer nose or shorter legs, they aren't sterile.
Just like how dogs are bred to extreme sizes, roles, and shapes.


Also, oi_antz assumes that everyone who doesn't believe in creationism has never sincerely sought God at one point. I think you'll find that the majority of non-believers became so as a result of their search for God.

Atheists: raise your hand if you used to be Christian.

 

[Posthlewait3]

great post ks777!

 

[Greg1234]

Random mutation isn't sterile, outbreeding mutations are.

Mules, for example,

I'm not talking about mules n particular, but the fact that random mutation cannot take bacteria to man.

 

[Robban]

What,s all this got to do with "fire"?

 

[Greg1234]

What,s all this got to do with "fire"?

The Darwinists started it.

 

[Robban]

The Darwinists started it.

Haha

 

[Ayersy]

Look it up. If you still believe that the cell is a globule of protoplasm then youre further gone than expected.

You're the one making the claims. You back them up.

You are not obligated to. Your full adherence to Darwin is priority. But attempting to jump the gun, or assertions about theists and their beliefs which is inherently based on Darwinism will yield a redirection to the fact that random mutation cannot build a man.

Who ever said that random mutation can build a man? In clear writing, please show me where somebody said that random mutation can "build a man".

You being an atheist and a Darwinist is not a surprise. Science tells us that life adapts. Science also tells us that random mutation is sterile, that DNA is coded with an adaptive feature, and that said process is limited. Your assertion of lots of micro evolution= macro evolution or lots of muscle change = forklift is based firstly on that same Darwinian notion of random mutation. Recognizing muscle change and leaving out the fact that it is not a random process or that it is not unlimited will yield the same rebuttal. You may accuse creationists for not accepting science, but the fact remains that science in its completion reveals only creation. No atheism required.

Random mutation is sterile? What? Where did you get that one from? Random mutation is random mutation.

Nobody ever said that lots of muscle change = forklift, and if they did, they're an idiot. Exercising of an individuals body, and the process of evolution are two completely different things. Stop comparing things which cannot be compared. Lots of small changes equalling one big change is just common sense.

You've made it clear you don't understand or accept science, since science has no "completion", only striving for greater levels of understanding. Again, please display how science reveals only creation.

Science only reveals more and more information as it goes by, it doesn't undiscover things. Think of all the things mankind has discovered over the years, things that we used to attribute to supernatural entities, which we now know to be completely natural. Evolution is no different than how mankind discovered why earthquakes happen, or lightning. Science revealing creation to be true is like saying science will eventually reveal that it really rains because people do rain dances, or that lightning is actually caused by Zeus throwing down lightning bolts. Atheism isn't required in order to believe in evolution, quite rightly, just an ability to accept the facts laid before you.

It doesnt matter to me what you believe or don't believe exists. The fact is chance cannot build a man. Start there.

Nobody ever said chance can "build" anything. There is no construction, here, only adaptation.

Or the fact that there is a little man in your radio. The lengths presented to escape the facts stands only as a reflection of Darwinism.

What facts are us "Darwinists" supposedly escaping? Please. Facts. State them. With citation. Stating something is a fact without anything to back it up is just plain foolishness.

If you were aware of what has been given then you would never have made that comment. But back on topic, the fact is you have never seen radio waves. All you've done is outline a basic test which shows that radio waves are the cause of sound and not little men. We have done the same with random mutation and tests have shown that chance cannot build a man.

Like I said, I can manipulate radio waves, that is proof they are there. If I stand in front of the radio, I block the signal, if I raise the antennae, it is more likely to receive a good signal. I can also rely on the fact that I've seen the inside of a radio, and there's no little men in there, and the fact that there's no evidence of such little men. There is at least a shred of evidence supporting radio waves from the sheer fact that I can block the radio waves by standing in the way of them, and that when I drive through a tunnel, I lose the signal. It all fits. Also, what tests have been performed? Citation, please.

We have also gone beyond that. Start at the fact that man is created.

Why should I start with something that isn't a fact, but in fact, an unsupported claim? A claim filled with bias.

It doesn't matter whether you know how it was done. The fact is your assertions of demeaning the realization that man was created is as viable and relevant as demeaning the realization that the engineer did it.

Yes, it does matter whether you know how it was done. The how is just as important as the why. The real fact is, we know that the engineer created the computer because we can replicate it, because he documented it, because it's testable. Creation is none of these. It's a claim, without anything to back it up.

I will. Tests reveal only design. I haven't requested data based on your random mutations assertions. So yes, this is where we will meet.

I haven't made any "random mutations assertions", I've merely said, life adapts. Which it does. Seriously, again, what tests. You may not have requested data, but I am. You claim that science validates creation, yet have nothing to back it up.

Chance cannot build a 747 a robot, or a man. Test results are equal accros the board.

Bananas aren't capable of painting a chicken, or a hat. See, I can do that, too.

Nobody said chance can build anything. Again, seriously, what tests are these?

The first measure of intellignent design of your computer is based on the complexity of said system, and the results of testing which shows that a computer cannot be assembled through chance. Yes, integrated complexity is an indicator of design. So is testing.

Again, nobody ever said anything about things being "assembled" by chance.

Complexity is an indicator of years of evolution. See, I can make claims, too. Computers aren't lifeforms, they cannot be compared to them. You're choosing something which is man-made, on purpose, because it's man-made and you're hoping it'll prove your point. It doesn't. Computers are computers, life is life. The two things are different.

We don't ignore it. In fact we show you guys the rest of science based on adaptation. What we ignore is your request for us to ignore the rest and replace it with Darwinian speculation. I'll pass.

Nobody is requesting anybody ignores anything. All we're requesting is that you simply LOOK at the evidence. Rather than already deciding it is already false because it doesn't fit in with your holy books. That's it.

As for you apparently showing us science... I keep asking for you to show me some, and all you give me is babble about tiny men in radios and computers being complex. You keep talking about testing, but don't actually mention what the tests are, and you refuse to provide citation.

Creationism isn't science, it's a pre-packaged answer designed to fit in with ancient scriptures.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is constantly being updated and revised, as we find out more information about it. That's science. Creationism isn't.