The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[FormerAtheist]

I talked with a very attractive scientist today about something that needs to be said on this.

There are to my knowledge 4 primary means of evidence for evolution:
1. Fossils
2. Anatomical comparisons
3. Genetic evidence
4. Molecular Clock Data

In these 4 we can make a strong case for evolution. Let me say it again we can make a strong case for evolution based on these 4 methods. We can also make a strong case against evolution. But there is something we need to get clear.

Do you think that there are any limits on evolution?

Do you think that a cat could evolve into a whale in 100 years?

If you say yes then you are crazy because no one actually believes that. We all accept that evolution is possible but we also all believe that there are some limits.

Ok then what are the limits?

How do you find these limits?

Easy!!!

Math and lab results lol hahahaha

And guess what its horrible lol.

 

[FormerAtheist]

by the way if K you are looking ... yeah you are attractive lol.

but you knew I thought that

 

[FormerAtheist]

You know the truth is that the science that led me away from atheism was amazing but I should have been listening to other things like the creative people around me.

For example:

Yeah I know its not a good video that I made for his amazing music but lets just take a pause and take in his amazing music lol.

Its this kind've stuff that makes me laugh because well we should laugh when we see or hear something that is ... well on that level.

 

[FormerAtheist]

by the way it should be noted that I have told you I am nothing.

I stand by that ... I feel deep inside ... nothing.

But I wont cower on others foot steps ... I feel proud that I was able to work with them but yet I will say this ... I did my thing:

but who cares

I dont

 

[FormerAtheist]

And there was this ...

 

[FormerAtheist]

I want to make something clear though that even though I am a composer I never took anything away from the world class composers that worked with me. I never did. They knew it too we had many conversations. It is what it is. I always thought of them well beyond me.

 

[FormerAtheist]

This was me live. The only thing I ever wanted to do live for video. (back note my buddies that have worked with the best names ever wanted to capture this video of me doing this live. I never liked it.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I am studying your responses. I am watching you just as you for me. In the end we are in a fight ... this is how it must go.

I will study you and your responses on everything.

I want to end your ideology.

Your Ideology is a threat to everything I hold dear.

Can you understand that?

The " Christians" don't ... I don't care ... I will push on.

 

[mark kennedy]

I talked with a very attractive scientist today about something that needs to be said on this.

There are to my knowledge 4 primary means of evidence for evolution:
1. Fossils
2. Anatomical comparisons
3. Genetic evidence
4. Molecular Clock Data

In these 4 we can make a strong case for evolution. Let me say it again we can make a strong case for evolution based on these 4 methods. We can also make a strong case against evolution. But there is something we need to get clear.

I don't think there is any question that evolution happens, traits do change over time. The problem with the fossils is they are arranged around the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians. Comparing the chimpanzee to humans the first thing that should strike you is that the human brain is 2 1/2 times bigger and nearly twice as dense.

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you serious?

Even when I was an atheist I would not have taken you very serious. So you can find a way to make a search perimeter that you think will validate your ideas hahaha. Serioulsy?

And?

I would bet that anyone with just a bit more time then you have could do better. That's it?

Holy camel wow you should do better because I can garruntee anyone can beat that if they want to. But lets be real. Who wants to??????

We have better things to do with our lives.

You have nothing.

And you know it.





If I have to I can refute you in 15 minutes but I would rather someone else to do it for me.

1.You made an assertion, with no evidence to support it.

2.I have challenged that assertion and provided evidence to support my challenge.

3. The evidence is sound, but certainly over-simplified. It's a first look. However, given the lightweight character of your assertion and the total lack of supporting evidence, it was adequate for the purpose.

4. Refusing to take the time to counter my challenge will fool no one, except perhaps yourself.

5. Challenging an unsubstantiated assertion with a second unsubstantiated assertion is impertinent and foolish.

6. Some might see your failure to respond in a logical manner as an act of cowardice, but I think it is more likely a matter of incompetence at presenting your thesis, which appears to be based on the mantra "I believe it is so because I believe it is so".

7. Put up, or shut up. (Please. )

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

1. Still does not address cause.

2. What premise would you base this on?

1. So?

2. Assuming "something" could be eternal and uncaused in the first place and the Universe is something we already know exists, without positing another unexplained thing for which we have no evidence.

Kicking the can down the road seems to be the current defense of some skeptics.

Yet even the prevalent view still is the universe had a beginning.

but assuming an answer without sufficient evidence is the better way? You fail to grasp critical thinking.

Tell me, if you believed there was a refrigerator sized diamond in your back yard you could dig up at any time you liked without any evidence to support such a thing exists - would you be justified spending up big and ratcheting all your credit up to its limit in the mean time?

 

[Sanoy]

And of course, you'd be incorrect. Let's point out your argument in your original post:

​

So here, your position statement as thus: "If I wasn't a Christian i'd be a deist or something close." - do you agree this is your stated premise (whether opinion or not is inconsequential, because the knock-down will follow)?

Then you Supported your premise with the following supporting position: "There just isn't enough to carry me over the extreme improbability that all existence came about naturally." - It matters not that you think this wasn't an argument, all the parts to an argument are present and accounted for - you really do need to sit in on a Philosophy - 101 course to understand why you've missed the mark so furiously.

again, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Everyone can see you've clearly constructed an argument complete with premise and supporting position, even though just a 'position' would suffice as an argument.

Just pointed out your epic blunder above - here it is again, the argument in support of your premise you provided is:

"There just isn't enough to carry me over the extreme improbability that all existence came about naturally."​

No, no! No need to thank me - I consider it a public service, my contribution to building a better society, something I perform without expectation of reward...

"If then" is also in computer programing, are computers argu-bots? No, of course not.

Notice all the I's in those statements. Did you see any "you"s? These are factual statements about myself. Did you see any synthetic claims beyond myself? Not even if you squint harder than you already have been.

You are making yourself look ridiculous and petty in your failure to understand common language. I suggest you actually take philosophy 102, but only after you pass 101.

So which is it, incredulity or reasons. Which one are you actually going to admit being mistaken on? Or is your current lack of response an indication you have decided to retain your pejorative character?

 

[mark kennedy]

1. So?

2. Assuming "something" could be eternal and uncaused in the first place and the Universe is something we already know exists, without positing another unexplained thing for which we have no evidence.

but assuming an answer without sufficient evidence is the better way? You fail to grasp critical thinking.

Tell me, if you believed there was a refrigerator sized diamond in your back yard you could dig up at any time you liked without any evidence to support such a thing exists - would you be justified spending up big and ratcheting all your credit up to its limit in the mean time?

It's the New Testament witness that you do have evidence of God's existence, his divine attributes and eternal nature.

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:19-20)
​

The problem, according to the Apostle Paul is that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. What I'm seeing in the thread is a straight forward conclusion based on what one man considers persuasive evidence. All anyone can ask is that the actual evidence be thoughtfully considered:

Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer.” (Testimony of the Four Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf)​

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

"If then" is also in computer programing, are computers argu-bots? No, of course not.

?? - Stay with me here, stay with me...

Computers are LOGIC bots! Arguments do come into play... but of course they aren't arguing now, are they? Just like you put forth an argument even though you weren't arguing. Do you understand?

Notice all the I's in those statements. Did you see any "you"s? These are factual statements about myself. Did you see any synthetic claims beyond myself? Not even if you squint harder than you already have been.

Apart from "I"'s and "You"'s being inconsequential to the form of an argument, you made assertions about reality and your post still fits the form of an argument despite all your blather.

You are making yourself look ridiculous and petty in your failure to understand common language. I suggest you actually take philosophy 102, but only after you pass 101.

lol!

So which is it, incredulity or reasons. Which one are you actually going to admit being mistaken on? Or is your current lack of response an indication you have decided to retain your pejorative character?

Flapping and complaining doesn't change the fact you put forth an argument - even if you had no intention of arguing...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It's the New Testament witness that you do have evidence of God's existence, his divine attributes and eternal nature.

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:19-20)
​

The problem, according to the Apostle Paul is that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. What I'm seeing in the thread is a straight forward conclusion based on what one man considers persuasive evidence. All anyone can ask is that the actual evidence be thoughtfully considered:

Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer.” (Testimony of the Four Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf)​

So I could only assume that these are assertions made by the author of these passages because I've never had a God's existence made plain to me. At best, when I was younger and lacked the knowledge about the universe and reality I do now, I felt there had to be some kind of deity(ies) because everything around me struck me as a most incredulous if not for a God to guide it all, but there was nothing made obvious and this is when I would've taken hold hook, line and sinker had some religion made its way to me then.

Having since learned as much as I have about critical thinking and what the sciences have discovered about the universe around us, the idea that a supernatural entity is still needed just seems far-fetched. Now, that's not to say there isn't one, but if there is one, we ought to be able to detect it. Even if we could detect it, which one will it be? I know this forum is largely Christian, so I know what the allegedly "obvious" answer will be around here - but the fact is that there are a plethora of religions and many of them predate all of the judeo-christian religions. All of them have their own versions of miracles, saints, healers, prophets and well-documented NDEs to support them.

That's kinda where I'm at now - if there is a God and that God wants me to know he exists, then he's going to have to let me know - and of all Gods, if the Christian God exists as described, then he will know what it'll take to convince me and hasn't done so.

 

[mark kennedy]

So I could only assume that these are assertions made by the author of these passages because I've never had a God's existence made plain to me. At best, when I was younger and lacked the knowledge about the universe and reality I do now, I felt there had to be some kind of deity(ies) because everything around me struck me as a most incredulous if not for a God to guide it all.

Having since learned as much as I have about critical thinking and what the sciences have discovered about the universe around us, the idea that a supernatural entity is still needed just seems far-fetched. Now, that's not to say there isn't one, but if there is one, we ought to be able to detect it. Even if we could detect it, which one will it be? I know this forum is largely Christian, so I know what the allegedly "obvious" answer will be around here - but the fact is that there are a plethora of religions and many of them predate all of the judeo-christian religions. All of them have their own versions of miracles, saints, healers, prophets and well-documented NDEs to support them.

That's kinda where I'm at now - if there is a God and that God wants me to know he exists, then he's going to have to let me know - and of all Gods, if the Christian God exists as described, then he will know what it'll take to convince me and hasn't done so.

I don't know how other religions approach this, I wouldn't pretend to speak for all theistic reasoning, certainly not the pagan variety. My experience was different, as I learned more about history and philosophy the Scriptures looked more and more authentic. Now when it comes to God he is self-existing and self-evident, the Scriptures are clear that God has made known certain things about him, his divine attributes and eternal nature. In all my discussions with atheists and agnostics I've yet to have one of them ask me what God is like. That seems like it would be the first question, if for whatever reason I had concluded he didn't exist at all. I think understanding the things that may be known of God is what Kant would call a priori (without prior), two other examples would be immortality and time. There can be logical arguments, cosmological, teleology and that sort of thing but ultimately the reasoning that leads to a determined conclusion is an internal one.

An evidencial approach can be substantive when it pertains to something appropriate. The one for abiogenesis is a popular one, they are still trying to figure out how life could have originated, was it DNA/RNA first or proteins first. Now based solely on that the conclusion that there is or is not a God is really about more then probability arguments. It comes down to rationality I think, with the evidencial reasoning being secondary to personal conviction. If you would know God the testimony of Scripture is clear that you do know certain things about God and that you can know him personally. Now why that hasn't happened for you I don't really know, there could be any number of reasons for that. I can only tell you what persuaded me and the rationality of the system I came to identify with and the way of life I choose as a result.

 

[Astrophile]

HI:
As for the stars and constellations. Read E.W. Bullinger's book - A Witness In The Stars_ . Then consider what is written about them in Genesis 2. I hope this helps you.
Andy Centek

I have looked at the first part of The Witness of the Stars on Amazon. My first thought was that Bullinger was simply reading Christian doctrines into the names and the myths of constellations that were invented by Sumerian and Babylonian astronomers centuries before any part of the Bible was written. However, when I came to Bullinger's description of the constellation Coma, I knew that he was talking utter nonsense.

Bullinger says, 'The ancient name of this constellation is Comah, the desired, or the longed for. However, the real name of the constellation is Coma Berenices, which is Latin for 'Berenice's hair'. The constellation dates from the 3rd century BC, and the story, which every astronomer knows, when the Egyptian king Ptolemy III went to war with the Seleucid empire, his wife Berenice had her hair cut off and offered to the temple as a sacrifice to ensure her husband's safe return. The gods were supposed to have been so pleased with this offering that they put it in the heavens, where it can still be seen as the star cluster Melotte 111. Coma Berenices was not even regarded as a separate constellation until 1551; before that it was regarded as part of Leo or Virgo.

As I have said, Bullinger's explanation of Coma is utter nonsense, and when I read it I realised that it would be a waste of time reading any more of the book. However, I should add that Bullinger's interpretation of the name of beta Virginis - i.e. Zavijaveh - as 'the gloriously beautiful' conflicts with R.H. Allen's interpretation (in Star Names and their Meanings) as 'the Kennel of the Arab Dogs'.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have looked at the first part of The Witness of the Stars on Amazon. My first thought was that Bullinger was simply reading Christian doctrines into the names and the myths of constellations that were invented by Sumerian and Babylonian astronomers centuries before any part of the Bible was written. However, when I came to Bullinger's description of the constellation Coma, I knew that he was talking utter nonsense.

Bullinger says, 'The ancient name of this constellation is Comah, the desired, or the longed for. However, the real name of the constellation is Coma Berenices, which is Latin for 'Berenice's hair'. The constellation dates from the 3rd century BC, and the story, which every astronomer knows, when the Egyptian king Ptolemy III went to war with the Seleucid empire, his wife Berenice had her hair cut off and offered to the temple as a sacrifice to ensure her husband's safe return. The gods were supposed to have been so pleased with this offering that they put it in the heavens, where it can still be seen as the star cluster Melotte 111. Coma Berenices was not even regarded as a separate constellation until 1551; before that it was regarded as part of Leo or Virgo.

As I have said, Bullinger's explanation of Coma is utter nonsense, and when I read it I realised that it would be a waste of time reading any more of the book. However, I should add that Bullinger's interpretation of the name of beta Virginis - i.e. Zavijaveh - as 'the gloriously beautiful' conflicts with R.H. Allen's interpretation (in Star Names and their Meanings) as 'the Kennel of the Arab Dogs'.

I enjoyed Bullinger's 'The Significance of Numbers in Scripture', I really never took an interest in his thoughts on the gospel in the stars. Although I found it interesting the assignment of meaning to the various numbers seemed fanciful. The rule of thumb was the first mention of a number contains the meaning, it's not a bad starting point but wouldn't translate well into the meaning of the stars. There is virtually no astronomy in the Bible, just an occasional mention of a constellation from time to time.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't assume there's no creator or architect to our known universe, just that there's no logical reason to think Jesus is the architect himself. You'd think that if God (AKA Jesus) was walking among us and was known, he'd have intimate knowledge of his own universe to pass on. But he couldn't even tell us the basics (Like the earth was round) or (Germ theory) I know why people believe, I was once a believer. I understand the desperate need humans have for meaning & how death is almost impossible to accept without something to ease the fear.

If God incarnate came to earth for the purpose of giving lectures about Science, he would be passed off as a mere man. Point is, the purpose of the Sacred Scriptures is not to teach natural theology, rather the central purpose is salvation, with Christ the central figure, and the Covenants the progressive central feature.

Belief won't get you there, on the other side.

I like the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes", and I think about people like the lifelong famous atheist philosopher (Antony Flew) who had a change of mind/heart about a God near the end of his life. Some pass such off as a man becoming old and senile, not in the right frame of mind, out of their mind, but as you said, fear, fear of the unknown settles in near the end, when the shortness of this life becomes more and more evident. How would you know belief won't get a person there, you would have to be on the other side to have such knowledge, no?

 

[Sanoy]

?? - Stay with me here, stay with me...

Computers are LOGIC bots! Arguments do come into play... but of course they aren't arguing now, are they? Just like you put forth an argument even though you weren't arguing. Do you understand?

Apart from "I"'s and "You"'s being inconsequential to the form of an argument, you made assertions about reality and your post still fits the form of an argument despite all your blather.

lol!

Flapping and complaining doesn't change the fact you put forth an argument - even if you had no intention of arguing...

Sorry I can't follow non sequitur. Computers perform based on conditional statements, not arguments. Do you debate your computer?

I and You's form the components of analytical statements which are critical to understanding the synthetic statement that is being made. No wonder you are having so many comprehension issues, you think I and You is inconsequential! You have a dire lack of logic and the semantic comprehension which composes that logic.

I am not complaining, I simply made a statement. You were the one who complained in your response to my statement. I don't need to flap my arms and make a lot of noise...I'm the one who knows what statement I submitted.

You still can't admit one of your claims was wrong. You really do need to start working on the character you present. You would be far more respectable by admitting to the mistakes you make rather then hiding from the fact you make them.

I look forward to your next contrived post. I truly ( not sarcasm) enjoy seeing what you will come up with next.