My two favorite arguments for creation

[Nathan David]

Um, Jesus being born in a manger is not recorded history. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' birth. Why would anyone even have recorded it? Whoever wrote the accounts of his birth after the fact would have had access to the prediction of a messiah being born in a manger.

 

[Mistermystery]

Um, Jesus being born in a manger is not recorded history. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' birth. Why would anyone even have recorded it? Whoever wrote the accounts of his birth after the fact would have had access to the prediction of a messiah being born in a manger.

The accounts of Jesus's birth always remind me of Kim Ill's birthstories.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Does the Torah contain prophecies about the messiah? I thought it was the prophetic books that did, as well as some of the historical ones.


Anyway, your argument is flawed. Watches cannot reproduce and do not have any heritible information. Organisms, on the other hand, have both of these, and natural selection works to help create more diversity in life. Of course, science doesn't flat out deny the existence of God.

Where is the book of Isaiah?

Thank You.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Um, Jesus being born in a manger is not recorded history. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' birth. Why would anyone even have recorded it? Whoever wrote the accounts of his birth after the fact would have had access to the prediction of a messiah being born in a manger.

Not recorded history. Okay, so since I am not a biblical scholar and I expect that none of you are either...and since I am not a historian and I expect none of you are either I must depend on the standings of professionals, coupled with my own investigation and FACT.

THE FACT is, Jesus was predicted well in advance of his birth, that his birth would take place. Where, and when, and how. They were prophcied in the book of Isaiah.

[font=Arial, Helvetica] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 9:6-7

Isaiah was written around [/font]740-680 B.C. Now that isn't doctoring since Christ wasn't born until let's see....oh that's right...we started our yearly calander around his life. 0 A.D.

As far as who recorded it,
It is in the books of Mathew and Luke.

 

[nyjbarnes]

He's conflating several things.

Here's the webpage that covers several of the points he asserts above, an it appears he's mixing up axial tilt and distance.

I am not confusing anything. I work under the assumption that my readers have a certain skill, reading comprehension. I am not confusing the axial tilt and overall distance. Yes I do understand that we don't actually have a circular orbit, it is elliptical. Much like the earth is not a sphere, it is an ellipse. This accounts for the seasons over the entire earth and the axis accounts for the seasons in different parts of the earth. You'll have to do better than this to debunk my argument. And to all the haters out there, please, if you are going to call me an idiot, please at least back up your argument. Rhetoric will not be responded to. It only demonstrates how weak minded you are and ill prepared to defend your position. Liberals do this all the TIME. I hate it then, and I won't deal with it here.

Good webpage. I didn't use that one, but thanks for the link.
Now I agree degree's is a limiting factor since it does not denote an actual distance. I should have reprhased it to say something like this.

The earth in it's orbit of the sun has very little room for error and depends on many things to sustain life. One of which is the actual distance from the sun. The Sun's gravitational pull holds us in exactly the correct position to support life. If the sun's gravitational pull were to lessen, there is a good chance our orbit would increase and maintain it's distance, thus creating colder winters and hotter summers. So much so that life might not be able to sustain itself. This, scientists would have you believe happened by the origin of an unexplained mass or explosion that created the beginnings of the solar system. Now take this back to the watch. If you see a watch, you MUST THINK DESIGNER. That thing couldn't be produced by natural process, simply trying to replicate a simple process wouldn't recreate that watch. But scientists would have you suspend that reality to accept how the earth was formed and life originated. My overall point, despite the semantics of this debate is that the scientific method is not being used and you are being decieved. When you have a preconcieved notion about your hypothesis and you only search for results that support it, that isn't science, that is anti-God quackery, specific to evolution.

 

[challenger]

If you see a watch, you MUST THINK DESIGNER. That thing couldn't be produced by natural process, simply trying to replicate a simple process wouldn't recreate that watch.

But we can find mechanisms by which life can form and diversify, without the presence of an intelligent designer.

 

[Split Rock]

The earth in it's orbit of the sun has very little room for error and depends on many things to sustain life. One of which is the actual distance from the sun. The Sun's gravitational pull holds us in exactly the correct position to support life. If the sun's gravitational pull were to lessen, there is a good chance our orbit would increase and maintain it's distance, thus creating colder winters and hotter summers. So much so that life might not be able to sustain itself.

This argument does not work. The earth is perfect for life on earth because life developed on earth. Life elsewhere (if it exists) would be adapted to wherever it had developed. If conditions were such that life would not be possible on earth, there would be no life here.

If you see a watch, you MUST THINK DESIGNER. That thing couldn't be produced by natural process, simply trying to replicate a simple process wouldn't recreate that watch. But scientists would have you suspend that reality to accept how the earth was formed and life originated.

We know of no natural process for creating watches. We do know of natural processes for evolving species. As far as the origin of life, we have a number of hypotheses, but we do not have a firm theory. This may mean that life was not created through natural processes, but it does not necessitate such a conclusion. If we assumed that nothing we don't understand can be explained by natural processes, we would still be worshiping Thunder and Rain Gods.

My overall point, despite the semantics of this debate is that the scientific method is not being used and you are being decieved. When you have a preconcieved notion about your hypothesis and you only search for results that support it, that isn't science, that is anti-God quackery, specific to evolution.

It is creationism that utilizes a preconceived notion, not science. Why do you say that "anti-God quackery" is specific to evolution? How do you feel about Geology? What about Linguistics? By the way, evolution does not say anything about God... how can it be "anti-God"?

 

[nyjbarnes]

But we can find mechanisms by which life can form and diversify, without the presence of an intelligent designer.

For an example? You might start another thread and invite me to it. I am not sure this is the place for that discussion. I would hate for a good topic to get diluted.

 

[nyjbarnes]

This argument does not work. The earth is perfect for life on earth because life developed on earth. Life elsewhere (if it exists) would be adapted to wherever it had developed. If conditions were such that life would not be possible on earth, there would be no life here.

So you argument is that life developed on earth because all of the dependencies required happend to be all in place at the same exact time and all by hapanstance we have life here today? Do you even know the calculations behind the probability of what you are saying is? Let's see if we can piece this out. Answer me how many things your life, not everyone elses, just yours, depends on.
Sunlight,air etc...

We know of no natural process for creating watches. We do know of natural processes for evolving species. As far as the origin of life, we have a number of hypotheses, but we do not have a firm theory. This may mean that life was not created through natural processes, but it does not necessitate such a conclusion. If we assumed that nothing we don't understand can be explained by natural processes, we would still be worshiping Thunder and Rain Gods.

You missed the illustration by a mile. You don't know of anything that creates human life except human life. By your account another human could be created, given enough time by the advacement of the evolutionary theory beginnging with a single celled organism. I am telling you, that when you see complexity you automatically think designer, except in the case of biology and geology. You do this, because if you admitted that there was a designer you would have to admit that he was a god if not the God. And being your creator there is a certain amount of control that comes with that. Evolution, or the belief thereof in most cases is the refusal for a person to submit to an almighty God. Scientists would much rather depend on what they can see, feel, smell, and look at then trust in things unseen based on things observed.

It is creationism that utilizes a preconceived notion, not science. Why do you say that "anti-God quackery" is specific to evolution? How do you feel about Geology? What about Linguistics? By the way, evolution does not say anything about God... how can it be "anti-God"?

Again, re-read the post, I will too just to make sure I didn't miscommunicate my thoughts. The overall intent was that if you use science to disprove God, that is anti-God quackery. You are looking for a specific element, you'll find anything if you look hard enough...you'll just start construing facts.

 

[AirPo]

please, if you are going to call me an idiot, please at least back up your argument.

From post #11

Now for the predictive nature of the Bible. The Bible predicts over 300 things that relate specifically to Jesus Christ. I will name a couple.

That Jesus' legs would not be broken during his crusifixion
That Jesus would be born in a manger

Now here is the significance. This is recorded history.

From post#24

Not recorded history. Okay, so since I am not a biblical scholar and I expect that none of you are either...and since I am not a historian

Idiot

 

[nyjbarnes]

From post #11


From post#24


Idiot

Actually kind of funny. I laughed.

 

[AirPo]

Actually kind of funny. I laughed.

Cool! It was meant to be.

 

[challenger]

So you argument is that life developed on earth because all of the dependencies required happend to be all in place at the same exact time and all by hapanstance we have life here today? Do you even know the calculations behind the probability of what you are saying is? Let's see if we can piece this out. Answer me how many things your life, not everyone elses, just yours, depends on.
Sunlight,air etc...

No, I think that the argument was that life as it exists on Earth evolved to suit the conditions on Earth.

I am telling you, that when you see complexity you automatically think designer, except in the case of biology and geology.

Complexity doesn't necessarily indicate design by an intelligent agent. You are anthropomorphising here

Evolution, or the belief thereof in most cases is the refusal for a person to submit to an almighty God. Scientists would much rather depend on what they can see, feel, smell, and look at then trust in things unseen based on things observed.

Funny isn't it, how many evolutionary biologists are already theists?

Again, re-read the post, I will too just to make sure I didn't miscommunicate my thoughts. The overall intent was that if you use science to disprove God, that is anti-God quackery. You are looking for a specific element, you'll find anything if you look hard enough...you'll just start construing facts.

Obviously you can't disprove God with science, because science is agnostic, it doesn't adress God at all.

 

[Split Rock]

So you argument is that life developed on earth because all of the dependencies required happend to be all in place at the same exact time and all by hapanstance we have life here today? Do you even know the calculations behind the probability of what you are saying is? Let's see if we can piece this out. Answer me how many things your life, not everyone elses, just yours, depends on.
Sunlight,air etc...

Let me give you an example of how your reasoning is flawed. Say you are driving your car and start in El Paso TX. You then make left and right turns at random until many hours later, you wind up in Silver City NM. What is the probability that by starting from El Paso you would wind up in Silver City completely by chance?? By your reasoning, since the probability is very low, it is impossible that you are now in Silver City.

You missed the illustration by a mile. You don't know of anything that creates human life except human life. By your account another human could be created, given enough time by the advacement of the evolutionary theory beginnging with a single celled organism. I am telling you, that when you see complexity you automatically think designer, except in the case of biology and geology. You do this, because if you admitted that there was a designer you would have to admit that he was a god if not the God. And being your creator there is a certain amount of control that comes with that. Evolution, or the belief thereof in most cases is the refusal for a person to submit to an almighty God. Scientists would much rather depend on what they can see, feel, smell, and look at then trust in things unseen based on things observed.

This has been pointed out over and over, but I will repeat it for you here.. Evolution says NOTHING about God. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the "refusal for a person to submit to an almighty God." That is called atheism. There are in fact a number of Christians on this forum that accept evolution as the method that God uses to create. Science is AGNOSTIC toward God in its mechanisms, because the supernatural cannot be examined scientifically. This says NOTHING about a particular scientist and his feelings about God.

Again, re-read the post, I will too just to make sure I didn't miscommunicate my thoughts. The overall intent was that if you use science to disprove God, that is anti-God quackery. You are looking for a specific element, you'll find anything if you look hard enough...you'll just start construing facts.

Please show me how evolution (or science in general) is an attempt to disprove God. Any scientist who tries to use Science to disprove God is MISUSING scientific principles and methods.

You are making some wildly inaccurate assumptions about people on this forum and their beliefs.

 

[Nathan David]

THE FACT is, Jesus was predicted well in advance of his birth, that his birth would take place. Where, and when, and how. They were prophcied in the book of Isaiah.

[font=Arial, Helvetica]For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 9:6-7

Isaiah predicted a messiah would come. What you quoted is not very specific, at all. It could be made to fit any powerful Jewish leader.

[/font]
As far as who recorded it,
It is in the books of Mathew and Luke.

Were Matthew and Luke present at Jesus's birth? If not, on whom did they rely for their accounts?

 

[Nathan David]

So you argument is that life developed on earth because all of the dependencies required happend to be all in place at the same exact time and all by hapanstance we have life here today? Do you even know the calculations behind the probability of what you are saying is?

Do you have any idea how many stars there are in the universe?

 

[Mistermystery]

Actually kind of funny. I laughed.

Define kind plz

 

[lucaspa]

The watch and the watchmaker-

Predictive Nature of the Bible and the veracity therin-

Who's game?!

Sorry, but that one went away when Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that gives design -- natural selection. Now that natural selection is getting patents, I think you had better find another game.

 

[Jet Black]

The watch and the watchmaker-

evolution is a blind watchmaker duder.

 

[Jet Black]

Yes thank you....it get's tiring...where I am from Mod's pinch people for doing that. Ahem.

Watchmaker theory. Explained in brief you guys are close but miss the mark on several items...someone mentioned a crystal.

It's not about coming accross a watch. It's about understanding how a watch works. The reality is, if I were to place a watch into a box and shake it up how long to you think it would take before the watch came out fully assembled and functional?

you wouldn't but evolution doesn't work like that. nor does chemistry.

This parallels what scientists would have you believe about the earth and the origins of life. The simply by things being in the right place at the right time, the earth formed exactly in the right place to support life and exactly on a 23.5 degree axis, so perfect in fact that if were to move just a few degrees closer to or away from the sun we would burn up or freeze respectively. This they would have you believe happend all by chance.

not true actualyl, but then life didn't have to form on this planet either.

Now, the illustration of the watch is a good one, because a good watch has life,(it tells time or ticks) and a good watch has complex moving parts. Things that are dependent on each other for the overall goal of telling time. This relates directly to life. I expect that won't be enough for some of you. But that is the start of the debate. Also, why the crystal doesn't have any significance to what I am talking about is because as crystal is a formation of rock. There are no complexities to it. It's caused by a number of different things that can be easiliy accounted for and repeated today. Not similar. Thanks for playing though.

but duder, fox's protocells do the stuff life does, though not in as complicated a way.

Now for the predictive nature of the Bible. The Bible predicts over 300 things that relate specifically to Jesus Christ. I will name a couple.

That Jesus' legs would not be broken during his crusifixion
That Jesus would be born in a manger

Now here is the significance. This is recorded history.

'course, someone could have made all that stuff up to retrospectively fit the prophecies.

The torah is not just a book of stories. It is a document that is corroborated many places not the least of which is the dead sea scrolls. That said, these prophecies were written 2000 years before Christ's brith. If you just took 8 of these prophecies, the odds of a person coincidentally fulfilling all eight of these would be one in 10 to the 17th power. Since we can't easily picture what that means, I'll give this illustration: Suppose you took the state of Texas and spread silver dollars two feet deep across the whole state, then marked just one of them and buried it somewhere in the state. Then, if you chose one person, blindfolded him, and told him to pick just one silver dollar, his chances of getting the marked one on his first try would be one in 10 to the 17th power

And for the most powerful part, Jesus fulfulled all of them. Not just 8, not 18, not 180. All of them. Well not all of them, because he has to return yet again, but that will be fulfilled.

sez u

Now just for reference, scientific absurdity is 10 to the 25 power. It might be less but I can't seem to find my reference.

oh that. Borel's law.