And yet you state repeatedly that I haven't presented any evidence? Go bite a hippo.
You'd be surprised how many hippos will let you bite them once before deciding they don't like it. :D
Quote:
We have observable evidence: creation itself. There is no logical reason to believe it was NOT the result of intelligent design
To that same token there is no logical reason to assume a being who has never shown itself in a meaningful way to the populace at large created everything. For every scientist that says one thing there will always be another that says the opposite. So for sir knight the scientist, I'm sure I could dig up some one to refute his claim. some one probably already has.
Quote:
but you folks are regularly putting words in my mouth and taking my statements out of context and original thought. That's the sign of deperate men. Bad for your argument. Don't do that.
Perhaps it's a sign that you're not making as much sense as you think and without a bias towards the bible your points aren't as easy to understand as you think.
Quote:
I find that completely strange. You personally feel it's more sensible that life on earth just happened somehow rather than it was put here by an Intelligent Designer. What can I say? You're entitled to your opinion.
As strange as I find your belief in some higher being. How convenient he said he'd step back for a while, no need to prove his existance. To each his own.
Quote:
In a perfectly straight line. During an
Is this just for added drama? Further add to the IMPOSSIBILITY?
It seems your argument gives nature/evolution only one chance. who knows how long the substances of an enzyme were bumping in to each other.
Quote:
scream intelligent design
Well there we go, can't argue with that. I couldn't finish, My claptrap proximity sensor was binging like a smoke alarm :)
Quote:
The proper answer to this is, "No, it couldn't." There are some things that are simply impossible, no matter how much time, space and random occurence is
available. Reality is far different from philosophical fantasies
The proper answer huh? Philosophical fantasies... Claptrap...Claptrap...Claptrap...Claptrap...Claptr ap...
Quote:
They are not the result of qualified research.
Please enlighten us on your qualified research. Even the article I read only sigthed sir knight. Everything else was claptrap squared.
as little value as you place on my arguments, probably about the same I place on yours, so we're cool :)
__________________
John Wilker
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Your perception of those could be quite correct. The last one (days of the flood) was especially ambiguous.
Your definition of the first two doesn't fly with me though. Maybe god just has a bad writing style. I certainly hope he doesn't get a job writing technical manuals :)
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
the most significant reason scientists discount creation as a valid scientific theory is because there is no test that can be designed to prove it wrong
No ike, wayfinder dismissed it. Evolution is too unlikely. Since the bible said things would happen, and we interpret the bible and can then apply those prophecies, we don't need proof beyond observing the truth that is the bible... I hope i got it right. Even if you never see this ;)
__________________
John Wilker
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And yet you state repeatedly that I haven't presented any evidence?
Additionally after having muddled through about 1/2 of an article I can say that most of the arguments presented are a long the lines of
"It's so impossible, it must be god."
"No matter how long it takes, it could never happen. It must be by design"
"this is so silly how could it be, it must be a designer"
I saw no evidence of experiments or anything remotely looking like research beyond "I took High School and College science"
I'm pretty sure the guys working on evolutionary theories are little more educated the Bio 101, and physics 101.
Those are not close to any type of supporting evidence.
If we aren't relying on scientific method, let me know when god shows up :)
No loosely interpretted books and miracles that are miracles in your eyes only. the creator. Oh wait he's in the wings taking a break, how convenient.
__________________
John Wilker
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jwilker You'd be surprised how many hippos will let you bite them once before deciding they don't like it. :D
The trouble is, when they bite back... :d
To that same token there is no logical reason to assume a being who has never shown itself in a meaningful way to the populace at large created everything.
In other words, we should only believe what we can see? Besides which, according to the Bible (which I know you disregard, but that frankly makes no difference to me) there are lots of people who were eye witnesses of the direct acts of God. They wrote it down. You refuse to accept that testimony. That's your decision. I have reason to accept it as legitimate.
For every scientist that says one thing there will always be another that says the opposite. So for sir knight the scientist, I'm sure I could dig up some one to refute his claim. some one probably already has.
In other words... science is largely a matter of personal interpretation, speculation and opinion and therefore untrustworthy? I agree.
Or... to put it more accurately... you choose to accept only scientific data and statements that agree with your personal opinions.
Perhaps it's a sign that you're not making as much sense as you think and without a bias towards the bible your points aren't as easy to understand as you think.
The only ones who find these points easy to understand are those Jesus referred to as "meek". These are people who are willing to admit that their own personal knowledge, understanding and wisdom is limited and accept that it is possible that there is a wisdom beyond their own. To such ones, the things I am saying here on this forum make perfect sense. However, the Bible foretold that those who are haughty and arrogant would refuse to understand, no matter how simply it is worded.
The prophetic scripture says:
Matthew 13:14,15-- "Toward them the prophecy of Isaiah is having fulfillment, which says, 'By hearing, YOU will hear but by no means get the sense of it; and, looking, YOU will look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes; that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back, and I heal them."
Or how about 2 Peter 3:3,4-- "3 For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: "Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep [in death], all things are continuing exactly as from creation's beginning."
Congratulations guys. You're fulfilling prophecy.
As strange as I find your belief in some higher being. How convenient he said he'd step back for a while, no need to prove his existance. To each his own.
I've said it before and I will repeat: He has proven his existence. I and millions of others have accepted that proof. You have refused to accept that proof. Just because you refuse to accept the proof, that doesn't mean there isn't any proof.
We've seen evidence of such here. I and other readers of this forum have seen evolutionists claim that I have presented absolutely no proof or evidence regarding the idea of Intelligent Design... only to learn later that... well, no, in truth, they didn't bother to read the proof I had offered.
So when you say, "There is no proof"... sorry. We've seen that trick before. Caught you. With all due respect, tired of hearing that worn out claim. Your refusing to accept proof is not the same as absense of proof, is it?
It seems your argument gives nature/evolution only one chance. who knows how long the substances of an enzyme were bumping in to each other.
The Infinite Number of Monkeys concept. Already addressed that, extensively. File 13.
scream intelligent design.
The proper answer huh? Philosophical fantasies... Claptrap...Claptrap...Claptrap...Claptrap...Claptr ap...
Simple concepts of existence: If something is impossible, there must be another explanation. If something is obvious, it is likely true. If you tried to tell me that the Dell Axim is a result of random chance... I'd say you are in need of serious help. I have the very same opinion when you tell me the universe, life, man and all things came into existence by chance circumstance. I find that to be a ludicrous claim-- especially since there are other logical possibilities. I know you don't accept those possibilites... but that's your problem, not mine.
The concept of evolution is to me, nothing more than a philisophical construct to which scientific data has been bent in an attempt to make it work. And like I said... it's not like I haven't seriously and extensively examined evolution to see if it might be true. Findings: nope. It's a fairy tale with a LOT of contradictory evidence, a history of fraud and largely a matter of personal, biased interpretation.
Which claim of course, you can make about religion. To which I would answer, "Are we discussing religion here? I'm not discussing religion. Is anyone here under the impression we're discussing religion?"
:p
Please enlighten us on your qualified research.
I already have. Have you been experiencing problems with short-term memory? ;)
If you're asking me to present on this forum years of research... get real. For one thing, I have better things to do. For another, no matter what I presented, I believe it would not phase you a bit. You've already shown that to be the case. Be honest with yourself and with us: did you even really think about what you read in that article, or just instantly reject it as nonsense without really thinking about what it said? Be honest.
That information contained on my website was accompanied with valid statistical data. When you absolutely reject information I've already presented, no matter how logical it is, then I have no need to provide you with further information to be rejected, do I?
Even the article I read only sigthed sir knight. Everything else was claptrap squared.
Sorry you feel that way. And of course, by your inarguable opinion, since Sir Knight made that statement, he must not know what he's talking about, no matter how much the man is respected... right?
Do you even realize what you're doing? Anything that agrees with your view of evolution is fact. Everything that disagrees with it... even when it comes from the hallowed halls of your own scientific community... is instantly discarded and disrespected.
There will be no explaining anything to one who refuses to listen. Or as the Bible puts it, "Because you say you see, you are blind."
The only way to properly research and examine a study, is to examine ALL data, no matter how much you may disagree with it at first, to see if it holds value. If you'll forgive me for being blunt (a trait which none of us lack... grin)... I don't think you're doing that. I don't believe you're giving all data a fair shake. You have your opinion, and don't confuse you with the facts.
That's how it appears. When you snub researched statements from your own scientific community on the sole grounds that "there's somebody somewhere who would disagree with him"... then what other conclusion can I reach?
Anybody else feel free to jump in here, pro or con.
__________________
:)http://Truesite.org .... There's something there for everybody.:)
Almost Irish (free MP3s) -- Quest of the Turtle -- Personality Evaluation (free download) -- Wayfinder's Homepage... and more.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Howard2k Your perception of those could be quite correct. The last one (days of the flood) was especially ambiguous.
Isn't that interesting how things will affect people in different ways. I have absolutely no problem with understanding those two scriptures about the length of the flood. To me, it just seems crystal clear and I don't see how anyone can misunderstand what it says. One talks about the days that the rain came down. The other talks about when the waters recede. What is difficult to understand? It's two different things!
To be honest, I've never even had those scriptures questioned before, not by the staunchest Bible critics. I just don't get it.
__________________
:)http://Truesite.org .... There's something there for everybody.:)
Almost Irish (free MP3s) -- Quest of the Turtle -- Personality Evaluation (free download) -- Wayfinder's Homepage... and more.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jwilker Evolution is too unlikely.
To be specific, yes, that's exactly right.
Since the bible said things would happen, and we interpret the bible and can then apply those prophecies, we don't need proof beyond observing the truth that is the bible
Well, if you know enough about the Bible to understand that every prophecy in it has come true that was due to come true, then this statement is also correct.
I mean, if someone makes 5,000 predictions and they all come true, it stands to reason that 5,001 will come true as well.
HOWEVER... the Bible is not the only proof we have of creation. But we've been there, haven't we? Several times.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
__________________
:)http://Truesite.org .... There's something there for everybody.:)
Almost Irish (free MP3s) -- Quest of the Turtle -- Personality Evaluation (free download) -- Wayfinder's Homepage... and more.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jwilker "It's so impossible, it must be god."
No, its impossible so it's impossible. There must be another explanation. And Intelligent Design makes sense.
That is simple basic logic. The concept of God requires more.
"this is so silly how could it be, it must be a designer" I saw no evidence of experiments or anything remotely looking like research beyond "I took High School and College science"
OK, so let's discount College. ATTENTION PLEASE! EVERYONE WHO HAS LEARNED ANYTHING IN COLLEGE... YOUR OPINIONS, FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE IS NO LONGER VALID IN THIS DISCUSSION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
What, you guys want a detailed list of my personal research over the last coupla decades?
I'm pretty sure the guys working on evolutionary theories are little more educated the Bio 101, and physics 101.
Riiiight. And since they had nothing to do with the bio and physics textbooks.... And the bio and physics professors obviously aren't a reliable source of data...
Guys I'm sorry. You crack me up. In a debate class, they'd laugh.
If we aren't relying on scientific method, let me know when god shows up :)
a) We both rely on scientific method. I just don't make it my God.
b) When He does show up... believe me, you'll know.
Oh wait he's in the wings taking a break, how convenient.
Oh, he's not in the wings taking a break by any means. But since you're not on His side... you don't know what he's up to.
And before you ask.... yup. I do. At least, enough to matter. That's what ya get from studying the Bible.
:p
__________________
:)http://Truesite.org .... There's something there for everybody.:)
Almost Irish (free MP3s) -- Quest of the Turtle -- Personality Evaluation (free download) -- Wayfinder's Homepage... and more.
Besides which, according to the Bible (which I know you disregard, but that frankly makes no difference to me) there are lots of people who were eye witnesses of the direct acts of God. They wrote it down
I don't disregard it. I seek some proof other than it. How can an eye wtiness account in the bible be unbiased? It can't Just because it's written doesn't make it true. If I wrote in my blog that god spoke to me, what makes it true?? Because I said so?
Quote:
In other words... science is largely a matter of personal interpretation, speculation and opinion and therefore untrustworthy? I agree.
No more widely interpretted and open to speculation and opinion than the bible.
Quote:
Or... to put it more accurately... you choose to accept only scientific data and statements that agree with your personal opinions.
I guess I could call all of it claptrap and dismiss it, but that's the route you took so I went a different route.
I'm probably the least arrogent person I've ever met. But I am in no way a blinder wearing follower. I don't need to validate my existence with some higher cause.
Quote:
He has proven his existence. I and millions of others have accepted that proof.
Like the nazis? There were millions of them and they thought they were right. Good company to keep.
Quote:
The Infinite Number of Monkeys concept. Already addressed that, extensively
Dismissing with the wave of a hand is hardly "extensively addressing" :crooked:
I bet if I went to Texas I would meet the maker of the Axim, can you introduce me to the maker of humans? Examples like that are plain silly and that's the second or third one. A PDA is hardly the same thing and we know who made it. Steve in dept 9.
Quote:
I already have. Have you been experiencing problems with short-term memory?
Where? Even on your site it's the same as here. Nothing conrete is presented. Years of research I would think would fill volumes. Would be documented. Would be used as proof.
"This can't be.. so god must be responsible" is hardly research. high school and College science classes aren't research either. Is there a thesis, and article maybe that has more than one source and 9 paragraphs of claptrap (I love that word, very universal)
Quote:
Sorry you feel that way. And of course, by your inarguable opinion, since Sir Knight made that statement, he must not know what he's talking about, no matter how much the man is respected... right?
I never said sir knight was wrong. Nothing of the sort. Of course there's nothing to back his statement other than his opinion that the odds are too great. What I did say was that There are probably two or 20 others who disagree so if he's your star witness, good luck. Twisting words? I thought only our side was doing that. :crooked:
Quote:
I don't believe you're giving all data a fair shake. You have your opinion, and don't confuse you with the facts.
I'm sorry it seems that way. I'm trying to see your point but haven't been presented evidence more compelling than "The bible says so, and this guy says it's unlikely" If you have some books I could pick up please post the titles and I'll try to read them. Though if they are like your site I make no promises. An unbiased examination is fine though.
Quote:
OK, so let's discount College. ATTENTION PLEASE! EVERYONE WHO HAS LEARNED ANYTHING IN COLLEGE... YOUR OPINIONS, FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE IS NO LONGER VALID IN THIS DISCUSSION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
YES!! when I was in school I wasn't researching anything more than what I needed to do homework. That's not very indepth. You may have been different. Did you do a thesis? Final project. Bio 101 isn't research. Come on. How can college courses (expensive high school courses) be research?
Quote:
a) We both rely on scientific method. I just don't make it my God.
b) When He does show up... believe me, you'll know.
It's not my god. Get it. I don't believe in one. I don't feel so small I need something greater to cradle and stand with me. I stand on my own.
Sounds like a great guy. Rather than show himself and let us see and of course worship we are "tested" with a book and if we worship the book then when he does show we're ok to enter. What a great concept.
If god came forward identifiied himself as the one true god he'd have my worship. What is so wicked in asking to meet my god before I throw myself into something that could be nothing more than flim flam?
__________________
John Wilker
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think Jwilker did a good job of addressing most of the flaws in your arguments, Wayfinder. I particularly like his last comment about being tested with a book rather than visual proof.
Using your own logic, Wayfinder, isn't it equally likely that Satan wrote the Bible to confuse Christians from following Judaism or some other religion?
I think that if you can dismiss your own blatant contradictions as misinterpretations on my part, you could do the same to all of the flaws in the Bible. If you can wave your hand and say that "I've seen miracles" and "no miracles happen anymore" do not conflict with each other, then there's just no arguing with you.
Your biggest argument for Christianity seems to be that evolution is too unlikely. What you need to realize is that even if you proved evolution wrong, that does not prove Christianity right.
If you think all of the prophecies of the Bible have come true, then you're not reading close enough. The entire basis for Christianity - Jesus fulfilling his prophecy - did not come true in the timeline as it was presented in the Bible. There is not just one, insignificant quote saying he would come again within his disciples generation ... it's practically littered throughout the New Testament! If you can ignore that, you can delude yourself into believing everything else in the Bible. We can't help you.
Furthermore, the resurrection account (without which, you would have no Christianity) has contradictions throughout all 4 of the Gospels. But ...
if ("i've seen miracles" == "miracles don't happen anymore") {
anything = possible;
}
Can you follow that logic? Because I'm having a hard time following yours.
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
let me add something here about the word generation. the english language is extremely limited. an example is the word "love"
i love my wife. i love pizza. i love that movie. i love reading sci-fi. i love my ax. each has a different connotation but we use the same word.
the word 'generation' as used in the bible can mean a period of 30-33 years. its root in greek can also indicate a complete geneology, kindred, offspring, etc. hopefully you see the point. the word 'generation' is applied to all of these concepts.
which brings us back to the passing of a generation. mankind will not pass away until these things happen. it is a quite logical interpretation taken in the context of the many passages where jesus says 'this generation' shall not pass away.
just a point to ponder.
__________________
Harold Nelson, USN, ETC(SS), retired
"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity." - Horace Mann :approve:
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away" - George Carlin
Sure, you can interpret it any way you wish to bend it to your beliefs. The problem in this instance is that the word "generation" was not the only account of Jesus' prophecy. He specifically said that those that pierced him would see him come back. I don't have my quotes handy, but generation is not the only thing you will have to wave your hand over.
In short, you can do backflips to get the Bible to mean whatever you want. You can ignore all scientific evidence that disagrees with your beliefs ... that's your right as an American. As long as you don't try to push any legislation to enforce your beliefs, have at it!
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Uber Member
Addicted Member
Uber Member
