New from NJ

[Scorcher505]

What do YOU think about carbon dating, the age of the earth, the race of Jesus (provided he existed), dinosaurs, black holes, the ark, etc etc.

In short:
Carbon dating: not entirely accurate but a great tool for estimating
Age of Earth: VERY VERY old, i can never remember how many years it is, 60 million or 60 billion or whatever
Race of Jesus: Jewish
Dinosaurs: Big bird lizard things, loved em as a kid, loved Jurassic Park, more claws the better
Black Holes: Fascinating (ask my gf) I do not think we will ever understand them truly.
The Ark: Not quite sure which ark you are referring to. Noah's? That is a long story. Mose's? I believe I saw Indiana Jones find that one

 

[Angeldove97]

In short:
Carbon dating: not entirely accurate but a great tool for estimating
Age of Earth: VERY VERY old, i can never remember how many years it is, 60 million or 60 billion or whatever
Race of Jesus: Jewish
Dinosaurs: Big bird lizard things, loved em as a kid, loved Jurassic Park, more claws the better
Black Holes: Fascinating (ask my gf) I do not think we will ever understand them truly.
The Ark: Not quite sure which ark you are referring to. Noah's? That is a long story. Mose's? I believe I saw Indiana Jones find that one

That's just his sense of humor... forgive him

 

[Melodave86]

Angeldove97 says:

Because of how God has shown Himself in life--- I've had very real, very personal experiences with Him effecting my life in a very positive way. So much so, I can not deny Him, His existence, or what He provides me: comfort and salvation.

And this is coming from someone who teaches science to students.

So, as a science teacher, you know that it's ludicrous to think that one person's experience means anything to someone else without proof.


Scorcher505 says:

You are correct sir in that truth is not relative, it is absolute. If you are a student of science you would know that science neither proves nor disproves religion. It does however show that it would be a statistical anomoly of gigantic proportions to have the universe and everything in it created by mere chance.

But also that no matter what the ODDS are that this is all by chance, the odds of a creator have to be vastly greater. Theist seem to relish in the idea that any gaps in scientific info mean that faith wins. "You can't prove evolution 100%? That means it must be wrong!"

In short:
Carbon dating: not entirely accurate but a great tool for estimating
Age of Earth: VERY VERY old, i can never remember how many years it is, 60 million or 60 billion or whatever
Race of Jesus: Jewish
Dinosaurs: Big bird lizard things, loved em as a kid, loved Jurassic Park, more claws the better
Black Holes: Fascinating (ask my gf) I do not think we will ever understand them truly.
The Ark: Not quite sure which ark you are referring to. Noah's? That is a long story. Mose's? I believe I saw Indiana Jones find that one

LOL, I like you, you're silly!

 

[Angeldove97]

Angeldove97 says:

So, as a science teacher, you know that it's ludicrous to think that one person's experience means anything to someone else without proof.

No but the fact that millions of other peoples over many lifetimes having experiences that draw them to knowing that God is out there is valuable proof to me. And most other scientists who do also believe there has to be a supreme Being/Creator as well.

My main point was that you could understand science--- understand scientific theories and how to go about doing research--- and still know for a fact that God is real.

 

[Scorcher505]

But also that no matter what the ODDS are that this is all by chance, the odds of a creator have to be vastly greater. Theist seem to relish in the idea that any gaps in scientific info mean that faith wins. "You can't prove evolution 100%? That means it must be wrong!"

What do you believe in term of evolution? Pure Darwinism has not been an accepted scientific theory for decades because according to the fossil record the evolutionary changes in species happened very rapidly. Darwin proposed that his theory of evolution would take much longer than what we see.

Also, another thing that brings full evolution into question is that every single major organ in the human body is not mutually exclusive. A human heart is nothing without the rest of the body, and a liver serves no purpose until it is completely evolved. The best example is the eye. Remove any single component of the eye and we cannot see. If natural selection is to be believed in its entirety, why would animals as they are evolving continue to develop the eye? Evolution does not have some mastermind guiding it according to atheism, and natural selection says that useless parts or parts that do not serve to help an organism survive will be discarded through evolution. So why would we develop eyesight?

Until the eye completely evolved, organisms had no sight. Left up to natural selection, organisms would never have evolved eyes.

Now I am not saying that this proves or disproves anything. I am simply stating a case for a creator. Look into the cosmological and teleological arguments and tell me what you think of those.

 

[Scorcher505]

One can as easily say that you cannot prove God exists 100% so he must not be real either. In fact, one can not prove that anything exists or that anything is real, so nothing must exist or be real...

 

[Melodave86]

What do you believe in term of evolution? Pure Darwinism has not been an accepted scientific theory for decades because according to the fossil record the evolutionary changes in species happened very rapidly. Darwin proposed that his theory of evolution would take much longer than what we see.

Also, another thing that brings full evolution into question is that every single major organ in the human body is not mutually exclusive. A human heart is nothing without the rest of the body, and a liver serves no purpose until it is completely evolved. The best example is the eye. Remove any single component of the eye and we cannot see. If natural selection is to be believed in its entirety, why would animals as they are evolving continue to develop the eye? Evolution does not have some mastermind guiding it according to atheism, and natural selection says that useless parts or parts that do not serve to help an organism survive will be discarded through evolution. So why would we develop eyesight?

Until the eye completely evolved, organisms had no sight. Left up to natural selection, organisms would never have evolved eyes.

Ugh, please do not spout irreducible complexity as it is laughable.

I'd show you a chart that might help you, but I can't yet. Link is provided.

Now I am not saying that this proves or disproves anything. I am simply stating a case for a creator. Look into the cosmological and teleological arguments and tell me what you think of those.

The problem with Aquinas' 'proofs' are that they rely too heavily on nothing. Regressing backwards and finding 'god' is biased and an atheist who started regressing would yield a different result.

 

[Melodave86]

One can as easily say that you cannot prove God exists 100% so he must not be real either. In fact, one can not prove that anything exists or that anything is real, so nothing must exist or be real...

Tricky Tricky, but there is evidence that the world actually exists. I can pick up a pile of dirt and hand it to you, and you know the earth is there. I can feel the wind and watch it move mountains (slowly, lol). I can see gravity's effects on things and know that they are there. However, nothing is evidence of God except faith.

 

[Angeldove97]

But would something have to evolve to that complexity? If something could survive and reproduce with a very basic "eye" sensor--- why get any more complicated than that?

It just doesn't make sense and it's something that goes against evolution--- when you evolve you, for the most part, become more complex. But why if you're already surviving and reproducing?

 

[Scorcher505]

Tricky Tricky, but there is evidence that the world actually exists. I can pick up a pile of dirt and hand it to you, and you know the earth is there. I can feel the wind and watch it move mountains (slowly, lol). I can see gravity's effects on things and know that they are there. However, nothing is evidence of God except faith.

With that I was rally making an absurd claim on purpose, not really trying to say anything profound.

As for evidence for a creator, you can see it all around you. The physical is evidence of the metaphysical. Nothing can cause itself

 

[Scorcher505]

You seem to be asking for evidence to prove God, so give some evidence that disproves him

 

[Melodave86]

But would something have to evolve to that complexity? If something could survive and reproduce with a very basic "eye" sensor--- why get any more complicated than that?

It just doesn't make sense and it's something that goes against evolution--- when you evolve you, for the most part, become more complex. But why if you're already surviving and reproducing?

Evolution is about survival, not gaining tricks and whistles


Let's say that there is an organism (we'll call them A's). Now, As have the region of photosensitive cells like part a of the diagram. A's only have a 25% survival rate due to their near-blindness. They are content with that because there is nothing they can do about it. THEY THINK THEY ARE PERFECT OUT OF IGNORANCE. Now, a few generations down the road, A1s have some offspring with depressed region of photosensitive cells like b from the diagram. We'll call them A2's. The A2's can 'see' better and are more fitted for survival. They are living 25% more and are passing those genes to their offspring. Thus, more A2's (mutated A's).

For every four A's born, only 1 survives long enough to pass on it's genes. For every A2 (mutated A's) born, 2 survive long enough to pass on genes. Soon the A2's outnumber the A's and are no longer considered mutants.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about it.

 

[Melodave86]

As for evidence for a creator, you can see it all around you. The physical is evidence of the metaphysical. Nothing can cause itself

You're gonna have to further explain, sir.

You seem to be asking for evidence to prove God, so give some evidence that disproves him

This is a perfect example of Russell's Teapot. It is only because of Xianity's numbers that the beliefs are not considered lunacy.

 

[Scorcher505]

If you can show me something that is the result of itself, caused its own existance, I will lend creedence to the argument for no God

 

[Melodave86]

If you can show me a single piece of EVIDENCE, I'll follow your god. We could go back and forth forever on this.

However, do not call yourself a student of science if you can follow without fact.

 

[Scorcher505]

I am a student of science but before that I am a child of God, which takes priority

 

[Melodave86]

I am a student of science but before that I am a child of God, which takes priority

but before that I am a child of God, which takes priority

Redundancy is redundant. Lol.

Srsly, though, you pretty much answered the big question. Why do you believe in god? It's because your faith has a priority over science.

And what if science could disprove god tomorrow? Where would your priorities lie then?

 

[MasadaCorban]

Truth isn't relative, ma'am. Truth is truth even if you choose faith instead. You can verify truth... you know, with evidence. If I saw evidence of god, I might consider changing my stance.

In fact, that's one of the reason I joined this site, I'd love to see how Christians (on a personal basis, not polls) explain away the evidence against religion.

What do YOU think about carbon dating, the age of the earth, the race of Jesus (provided he existed), dinosaurs, black holes, the ark, etc etc.

As a former staunch atheist for what I saw in church people as a boy, the Catholic church of my neighbors up the street and the Episcopalian church our family somewhat attended, suddenly grabbed by Christ during a month long living on the beaches of CA in 1976, later driven to journey through some 30 countries seeking to understand the faith that became mine though I had not been seeking it, only logically seeking answers amongst churches, and now, many years later, convinced churches are the most dangerous place for finding Christian truths, I can certainly relate and even respect YOUR decision and position. I would rather dig into the debate of God vs no God with a thinking atheist than all the non-thinking church people. You want truly to have your present truth tested, let's do it via direct email.

masada5656@hotmail.com

I have not found a single "Christian" on this site willing to do so on any subject. Stay away from church, you won't find the truth there, though, it is possible the Truth will find you, even in a church. And I will probably be stoned for this post by all the "Christians" on the site.

 

[MasadaCorban]

No but the fact that millions of other peoples over many lifetimes having experiences that draw them to knowing that God is out there is valuable proof to me. And most other scientists who do also believe there has to be a supreme Being/Creator as well.

My main point was that you could understand science--- understand scientific theories and how to go about doing research--- and still know for a fact that God is real.

Though the whole world's population minus one believe the moon is made of cheese with many stories of how tasty it is, the moon is not made of cheese. If my belief in Christ was dependent upon the testimony of those professing His reality, I would certainly be an atheist still.

 

[MasadaCorban]

Tricky Tricky, but there is evidence that the world actually exists. I can pick up a pile of dirt and hand it to you, and you know the earth is there. I can feel the wind and watch it move mountains (slowly, lol). I can see gravity's effects on things and know that they are there. However, nothing is evidence of God except faith.

A fundamental criteria for declaring anything scientific requries OBSERVATION of the matter at hand. Niether evolution or creationsim qualifies. BOTH require faith. Niether is scientific. That understanding is step one. All are in the same boat.