Young Earth Creationism (the Six day theory), meets the big bang and Evolution...

[ATM]

In honor of the point of this thread..which died long ago...*sniff*...I propose a toast.

and this painting of A rooster zebra contemplating a grilled cheese sandwich by Matt Forderer.

Though I apologized earlier for straying off topic, I did not change my actions and have continued to do so. This is a good illustration of the difference between just being sorry and true repentance. I will now contemplate the grilled cheese sandwich with the rooster zebra instead of furthering your anguish.

In regards to your OP...

NO.

 

[dburkhead]

If I accept your "evidence" as compelling I have to accept theirs as equally compelling.
Your rules of acceptance are your own.

The only "rule" is avoiding the fallacy of special pleading. These others have just as much evidence as yours. Hindus have books written thousands of years ago claiming that the core concepts of their beliefs, as do Buddhists. Other religions tell just as much in the way of stories about things that supposedly actually happened.

For somebody who sits "outside" any of those beliefs, what possible reason would they have to accept yours rather than theirs? Because you say so?

So why is yours any better than theirs?
It's not mine. I was just compelled by it.

I expect better than this sophistry from you. Is your gun any less yours because you didn't make it? I didn't say you "made" the belief, but if you accept it then it is your belief.

So why is yours any better than theirs?

And yet you can't point out where the parables are flawed except to just assert that they are and basically claim "because God said so."
I addressed the flaws of your construct in earlier posts.

Um, no. You don't. You claim they are flawed and assert that "it's different" but cannot point out the substantive differences.

That's the point on which you continue to stumble: lack of a compelling scientific answer is not the same thing as support for "God did it."
No stumble, just nothing to compel me toward natural occurance.

Still stumbling. That you reject the evidence or don't feel it's "compelling" is still not evidence that a particular alternate belief is true. If I were the detective in some murder mystery being unable to prove that the Butler did it would not be evidence that the Maid did it.

I'm sure that belief comforts you. (No sarcasm intended.)
I know that people are comforted by deception as well. I do not use it as an evidence.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Sorry, but if their front page is so flawed there's really not much justification for me to dig deeper.
Couldn't tell you what's on the front page or most of the site. I only recommended the apologetics section.

So you don't know how reliable (or unreliable) your source is?

Oh, and on that 50-70 AD date for the origin of the NT, I do find it interesting that the "prophesies" attributed to Jesus in the NT that were clear and specific enough to be tied to actual events without literally centuries of debate were all things that happened before the earliest known written copies of the NT.
Conspiracy theories... from a scientist?

Strawman. Stories grow in the telling. No conspiracy required.

Markus Writerus: "Hey, Flavius! Do you remember what Christ said about the Jews?"
Flavius Kibbitsus: "Something about destruction."
Markus: "You know, the temple was destroyed a while back. Wasn't that the destruction he mentioned?"
Flavius: "Could be. But you know, Jerusalem was leveled and the inhabitants dispersed. That could have been it too."
Markus: "We're talking about the Son of God here. He said both. I'm quite sure of it."
Flavius: "I think your right. The more I think about it, the more I think I've heard both. Better include them both in this book."

The above is a fictional rendering, of course, but it shows how people can honestly conflate things that actually happened with what they think happened with what they fill in as logical necessity fo bridge the gap between the two. Human memory is a funny thing.

Funny that there was no, "Rome shall be divided into two Kingdoms and the Western one shall fall but the Eastern one shall linger for some hundreds of years before it too shall fall," or no "And a great evil empire shall rise and shall smite the Jews, and the dead shall be as numberless as the sands on the shore. And again, a nation shall arise across the sea in the West and another evil nation in the East and together they shall smite the evil empire and shall divide its lands between them." I mean, should not things like that have been at least as important as the destruction of the temple, the fall of Jerusalem and whether Peter shall "follow me"?
So, since the many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible are not an exhaustive account of every possible future prophecy, you discount it. OK?

Missed the point again. There seems to be a dearth of clearly filled prophesies that were filled after the books we have were written.

A lot of people make claims that people from Nostradamus to Jeanne Dixon make prophesies that have come true. However, when closely looked at, we find they aren't as remarkable as they are presented.

If I'm mistaken, perhaps you'd like to offer up some examples of prophesies that were fulfilled after the prophesy was written down and that we can establish that both of those happened.

I've looked into this. Most of the usual cases are either so vague that it would be surprising if some event in history didn't match it or else have been deliberately set up--kind of like two men in a restaurant talking and one "predicts" the other will be wet just before pouring his drink on him. Not much of a prophesy there.

Just consider that you may have placed the truth outside of your reach by negating it as a theory simply because science wouldn't be able disprove it. Science is the study of the natural but is unfitted for considering the supernatural.

That statement just shows how little you know of what science does deal with. Does something have an effect on the observable world? If it does then science can study it.

What are the rules for philosphical theories? Science seems so restricted in the types of material it may even consider.

Philosophical theories? Make up something that sounds good and get a lot of other people to nod their heads in agreement.

You really, really don't have any idea just how broad the types of material which science can consider. Science is about a process, not a collection of "facts." It's about testing what you think you know against new information and discarding what doesn't work.

There are simply more ways to be wrong than to be right. Unless you have some way of testing ideas, of checking them against some standard (like, say, the observable world) then the way to bet is that any given idea is wrong.

2 + 2 = some random integer. The probabilty that the right hand side will be "2" approaches zero. 1,283,495,684,946 is as likely to come up on the right hand side as 2. That is, unless you have some test of "rightness" to apply so it's not just some random integer.

That applies to philosophy as well, whether Plato's perfect unchanging forms or Heraclitus' "You can never step in the same river twice." By divorcing themselves from testing against the real world only the wildest of chance would ever lead to anything "true."

And so we're left with the religious person's "because I (or somebody) say so" as the reason to accept that the belief is "true."

And whether that longshot comes in so that it's "true" or not in some absolute sense, it still is not science and does not belong in science class.

 

[dburkhead]

No different than those who believe we just occurred but can't explain how. Same leap. Same lack of evidence. Same opposition. Yet easier for some to embrace.

Not quite. In the scientific approach we see certain processes at work. We simply consider those processes to continue even when we aren't watching (something like little children learn that objects still exist even when they don't see them--a concept called object permanence--sometime late in their first year). When we get to a point where this continuing of observed processes is insufficient to produce the observed results we have a magic phrase to apply: "we don't know." Now, from that, people springboard all sort of "maybe it happened this way..." type of things, but the core of science in those instances is "we don't know." And the difference between science and religion in the face of "we don't know" is to try to figure out ways to find out. And the core of that is to figure out ways to actually test the various "maybe it happened this way..." stories against what we can find out.

The history of science is full of "we don't know's" and of testing various "maybe it's this" ideas. Far more ideas failed the tests than ever passed them. (Yet more empirical evidence that there are more ways to be wrong than to be right.)

"We don't know."
"Maybe it's this."
"How can we check that."

And there you have the core of the scientific method along with

"if that's true, what happens then?"
"Let's look, does it?"

followed by either
"It didn't happen, so what do we need to change in our idea to match what we really saw?"

or
"It did happen, so what else would happen if this is true?
"Let's look, does it?"

And the cycle repeats.

Since there are more ways to be wrong than to be right then at any point if one says "okay, we're done" without doing the testing then one is almost certainly wrong.

And that is what creationism/intelligent design do. They're not science and do not belong in science classrooms.

 

[ATM]

PM sent. Topic hopefully restored.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

In The Last Nights

All you lab-centric dudes will go to sleep one night, just like on all other nights -- i repeat "just like on ALL other nights" -- thinking, "I've gone to sleep believing that I am God, or a little better than He, every night of my life, and I wake up feeling the same every morning, therefore........." But one Glorious Morning you won't wake up. You'll just sizzle. And saying, "OOOpps" won't matter. Your slight tactical error will result in your utter strategic destruction. IMHO. Yup, just IMHO.

 

[LEaSH]

Oh my.

 

[dburkhead]

All you lab-centric dudes will go to sleep one night, just like on all other nights -- i repeat "just like on ALL other nights" -- thinking, "I've gone to sleep believing that I am God, or a little better than He, every night of my life, and I wake up feeling the same every morning, therefore........." But one Glorious Morning you won't wake up. You'll just sizzle. And saying, "OOOpps" won't matter. Your slight tactical error will result in your utter strategic destruction. IMHO. Yup, just IMHO.

Perhaps. Or perhaps you folk who believe in the old man in a nightshirt in the sky will go to sleep some night and find out that there is nothing after--or rather not find out because there will be no "you" to find out.

Or perhaps you'll look up and see warriors killed in battle carried by the Valkyrior to Valhol while you are left to make your own way down to Nifflehel.

Or perhaps you'll be carried on a boat of reeds to the underworld where Maat will weigh your heart against the "feather of truth" and if it is heavier then Ammit will devour you but if it is not then you will enter into the fields of Osiris to toil throughout the day (unless you have shabti statuettes buried with you to do the work for you).

Or perhaps you'll simply descend into a gloomy afterlife overseen by Enlil and will spend the rest of eternity in gloom and darkness.

Or perhaps you'll simply have your memory stripped from you and be born in another body, like, say, an earthworm or a cockroach.

Or any of hundreds, thousands, of different beliefs related to what happens to the individual "self" when the body dies.

But, in the meantime, you can have the comfort of looking down your nose at people who believe differently or who simply question whether anyone really knows.

 

[LEaSH]

...or who simply question whether anyone really knows.

That's pretty much it right there.

 

[mettle]

Perhaps. Or perhaps you folk who believe in the old man in a nightshirt in the sky will go to sleep some night and find out that there is nothing after--or rather not find out because there will be no "you" to find out.

Or perhaps you'll look up and see warriors killed in battle carried by the Valkyrior to Valhol while you are left to make your own way down to Nifflehel.

Or perhaps you'll be carried on a boat of reeds to the underworld where Maat will weigh your heart against the "feather of truth" and if it is heavier then Ammit will devour you but if it is not then you will enter into the fields of Osiris to toil throughout the day (unless you have shabti statuettes buried with you to do the work for you).

Or perhaps you'll simply descend into a gloomy afterlife overseen by Enlil and will spend the rest of eternity in gloom and darkness.

Or perhaps you'll simply have your memory stripped from you and be born in another body, like, say, an earthworm or a cockroach.

Or any of hundreds, thousands, of different beliefs related to what happens to the individual "self" when the body dies.

But, in the meantime, you can have the comfort of looking down your nose at people who believe differently or who simply question whether anyone really knows.

I've offered you examples of proof; but, you won't accept them---real people, being healed by a real God just like in the gospels, happening today--- you just want to argue and justify your unwillingness to submit yourself to the conviction that's making you angry, bitter and what drives you so hard to intellectually deny what is reality.

But hey, continue to do so--- it's your right and you have a free will to do so. I'll even give you a phone # of the woman who was healed of cataracts, completely healed, instantly healed, miraculously healed---by God... she'll tell you all about it--- if you even would dare to listen. But, hearing the truth presents us with change, and some are really scared of that...

 

[PatMcGroyne]

A pretty good sand on it: "who knows?"

(It should say "stand" not "sand") Or beyond that, this one: "Who cares?" I'm not sure. But I've seen healings, been healed myself, I have survived a lot of non-friendly point-blank fire, had all my friends disappear in smoke right beside me, because (I think) of prayers. I've witnessed Buddhists evoke healing ( and Buddhists say its not a religion), but I also don't believe any prophet leaped from any holy rock, into heaven, on his horse (that horse's name was Baraq BTW). So, to soothe my mind, I have acquired a logic (IMHO) of this whole thing, that satisfies me: If God is not, and yet I believe in Him, then when I die, I've lost nothing and gained a peaceful life here on earth (my religion is a kind of Christianity that is pacifistic, but lets me practice my 2d amendment rights). But if God IS, and I believe in Him not, when I die I lose everything (IMHO) and still must pay back (in karma?? or something) all the bad i've done while living. I made the only (IMHO) logical and safe (IMHO) choice. I have nothing to lose.

 

[dburkhead]

I've offered you examples of proof; but, you won't accept them---real people, being healed by a real God just like in the gospels, happening today--- you just want to argue and justify your unwillingness to submit yourself to the conviction that's making you angry, bitter and what drives you so hard to intellectually deny what is reality.

But hey, continue to do so--- it's your right and you have a free will to do so. I'll even give you a phone # of the woman who was healed of cataracts, completely healed, instantly healed, miraculously healed---by God... she'll tell you all about it--- if you even would dare to listen. But, hearing the truth presents us with change, and some are really scared of that...

I've seen those same kind of "proofs" for all sorts of different belief systems. If I accept yours then I have to accept theirs.

The problem is that the different beliefs are mutually exclusive. If theirs is "true" then yours can't be. If yours is true then theirs can't be. But the same "proof" is offered in both cases. In at least one case, then, the proof cannot be an actual proof.

And if it's not proof for the one, it's not proof for the other either.

 

[kingnereli]

This topic is a perfect example of how science oversteps it's bounds. The modernistic philosophy that science can answer every question is flawed at best and immoral at worst.

Meach,

Upon close study you'll find that creationism and the theory of (macro)evolution are at fundamental odds that can not be reconciled.

 

[kingnereli]

Double Post

 

[mettle]

This topic is a perfect example of how science oversteps it's bounds. The modernistic philosophy that science can answer every question is flawed at best and immoral at worst.

Meach,

Upon close study you'll find that creationism and the theory of (macro)evolution are at fundamental odds that can not be reconciled.

Ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth......

Some things are so simple, that people make it hard.

Dburkshead, you'll never accept anything as truth or right. Not even your own philosophy; b/c you just want to justify your self.

You're not even a philosopher, as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle ALL sought to know 'true wisdom, life and knowledge', and they were humble enough to say that they had not found it yet. When they found definite proof of fact, from there they would find more. You, OTOH, have been shown proof, have been offered a phone #, real testimony from my life...etc etc.

You will continue to wrestle w/ the things you are arguing about until you simply decide to stop resisting the conviction you are feeling. It's not from me, or ATM, it's from the Lord, drawing you. Your skepticism will never make you happy, or truly free... if it did, you wouldn't in this thread so angrily and vehemently arguing your 'belief's. And your stance IS a religion... b/c you have established it. So let's not pretend you aren't 'religious', OK?

 

[dburkhead]

(It should say "stand" not "sand") Or beyond that, this one: "Who cares?" I'm not sure. But I've seen healings, been healed myself, I have survived a lot of non-friendly point-blank fire, had all my friends disappear in smoke right beside me, because (I think) of prayers. I've witnessed Buddhists evoke healing ( and Buddhists say its not a religion), but I also don't believe any prophet leaped from any holy rock, into heaven, on his horse (that horse's name was Baraq BTW). So, to soothe my mind, I have acquired a logic (IMHO) of this whole thing, that satisfies me: If God is not, and yet I believe in Him, then when I die, I've lost nothing and gained a peaceful life here on earth (my religion is a kind of Christianity that is pacifistic, but lets me practice my 2d amendment rights). But if God IS, and I believe in Him not, when I die I lose everything (IMHO) and still must pay back (in karma?? or something) all the bad i've done while living. I made the only (IMHO) logical and safe (IMHO) choice. I have nothing to lose.

You have just restated Pascal's Wager. The problem with that, however, is that it assumes a binary proposition: either "God" (singular, one choice) exists or does not. It completely ignores the question of "which god?"

There is the assumption that the choice is between the Christian God and nothing and that simply is not the case. And different "gods" have different requirements for their "heavens." You've got dying in battle for Norse/Asatru, giving up "desire" for certain classes of Buddhism, strangulation of others in certain forms of the worship of Kali, cardiectomy as practiced by the Aztecs, and a whole host of others. Which one is one going to pin one's hopes? Guess wrong and, well, pretty much all of them have some really grim "punishments" for "sinners" (and "sin" varies endlessly as does "proper worship").

 

[PatMcGroyne]

Paschal is either dead in hell, or he isn't. (IMHO)

You blab a lot of other folks' verbs, probably quoting from a Progressive teacher. "... Pascal's Wager. The problem with that, however, is that it assumes a binary proposition: either "God" (singular, one choice) exists or does not. It completely ignores the question of "which god?" There is the assumption that the choice is between the Christian God and nothing and that simply is not the case." O, really? I, on the other hand have stated my own 'wager' at my own experience's debt, and often use "(IMHO)". All opinions are possibly correct, and are worth just about what it costs you to look them up. I'm not saying that you are possessed, although some will. I just don't share your opinions, and like to talk about it. I'm not "out to save you." Your time for that may come . . . . . . or not. Keep it civil, use your own words, and let's keep it going. We are all much like kittens with their eyes not quite all the wy open. (IMHO!). Pat

 

[dburkhead]

Ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth......

Simply assuming that it is the truth does not make it so.

Some things are so simple, that people make it hard.

Funny. I would say the same thing.

Dburkshead, you'll never accept anything as truth or right. Not even your own philosophy; b/c you just want to justify your self.

And you'll never be able to look beyond your own assupmtions about what is "truth" and "right" because, having accepted them through "faith" you are incapable of judging those beliefs in the light of evidence.

It was once believed that rain happened because "God makes it happens." Or "God causes the earth to shake." or "God caused the drought that destroyed the fields, or "God caused Yosef to get sick and die," or, well, "God" has been the explanation for everything people didn't understand throughout history. And yet the more we look, the more we find reasons that don't need "God" for their explanation.

You're not even a philosopher, as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle ALL sought to know 'true wisdom, life and knowledge', and they were humble enough to say that they had not found it yet. When they found definite proof of fact, from there they would find more. You, OTOH, have been shown proof, have been offered a phone #, real testimony from my life...etc etc.

Funny thing about philosophy. In the thousands of years of "philosophic thought" not one of the "great questions of philosophy" has been definitively answered. Which should say something about the whole approach.

What you fail to realize is that I've seen your "proof"--repeatedly. You've not even claimed anything that I haven't seen a dozen times elsewhere.

I mentioned that I grew up in the Latter Day Saint religion. I saw "faith healing" there every bit as "miraculous" as what you've claimed here. Seen it with my own eyes. Yet in their belief system, you are on the outside, barred from the highest kingdoms in heaven because you are not a member of that church. So why is your "proof" valid and theirs not?

You will continue to wrestle w/ the things you are arguing about until you simply decide to stop resisting the conviction you are feeling. It's not from me, or ATM, it's from the Lord, drawing you. Your skepticism will never make you happy, or truly free... if it did, you wouldn't in this thread so angrily and vehemently arguing your 'belief's. And your stance IS a religion... b/c you have established it. So let's not pretend you aren't 'religious', OK?

So now you try amateur psychoanalyzing over the internet? Well, don't give up your day job.

What you interpret as "anger" is more frustration at folk, like you, who are so certain of their own rightness that they cannot even comprehend why others might come to different conclusions.

Why don't you tell me what you think my belief is since I suspect you haven't even got that right.

 

[dburkhead]

You blab a lot of other folks' verbs, probably quoting from a Progressive teacher. "... Pascal's Wager. The problem with that, however, is that it assumes a binary proposition: either "God" (singular, one choice) exists or does not. It completely ignores the question of "which god?" There is the assumption that the choice is between the Christian God and nothing and that simply is not the case." O, really? I, on the other hand have stated my own 'wager' at my own experience's debt, and often use "(IMHO)". All opinions are possibly correct, and are worth just about what it costs you to look them up. I'm not saying that you are possessed, although some will. I just don't share your opinions, and like to talk about it. I'm not "out to save you." Your time for that may come . . . . . . or not. Keep it civil, use your own words, and let's keep it going. We are all much like kittens with their eyes not quite all the wy open. (IMHO!). Pat

"And are worth just about what it costs you to look them up."

So, what makes yours any different, worth any more--from the perspective of someone on the outside.

From where I sit, the main "benefit" of yours is sitting their taking great joy in the idea that people not sharing your belief "sizzling."

Maybe there is a being that behaves like that with the power to do that. I, however, would not call such a being "good" by any rational definition of the word.

What you fail to understand, however, is that I started from a position not all that different from yours. It's as I looked more at the world around me and actually looked at the implications of what I believed that my beliefs changed.

So which, then, is the "kitten" with eyes only half opened?

 

[mettle]

Simply assuming that it is the truth does not make it so.



Funny. I would say the same thing.




And you'll never be able to look beyond your own assupmtions about what is "truth" and "right" because, having accepted them through "faith" you are incapable of judging those beliefs in the light of evidence.

It was once believed that rain happened because "God makes it happens." Or "God causes the earth to shake." or "God caused the drought that destroyed the fields, or "God caused Yosef to get sick and die," or, well, "God" has been the explanation for everything people didn't understand throughout history. And yet the more we look, the more we find reasons that don't need "God" for their explanation.



Funny thing about philosophy. In the thousands of years of "philosophic thought" not one of the "great questions of philosophy" has been definitively answered. Which should say something about the whole approach.

What you fail to realize is that I've seen your "proof"--repeatedly. You've not even claimed anything that I haven't seen a dozen times elsewhere.

I mentioned that I grew up in the Latter Day Saint religion. I saw "faith healing" there every bit as "miraculous" as what you've claimed here. Seen it with my own eyes. Yet in their belief system, you are on the outside, barred from the highest kingdoms in heaven because you are not a member of that church. So why is your "proof" valid and theirs not?



So now you try amateur psychoanalyzing over the internet? Well, don't give up your day job.

What you interpret as "anger" is more frustration at folk, like you, who are so certain of their own rightness that they cannot even comprehend why others might come to different conclusions.

Why don't you tell me what you think my belief is since I suspect you haven't even got that right.

Oh, you have a belief system, and you are religious; it's called humanism. It started in a major during the Renaissance; and people like you, who by the way aren't original in any way, carried to more areas with wild imaginations and systems of thought--- which will never be original, just rehash of what has already been thought---. It's called a religion of self, self-love, self worship... a religion of self-sufficiency. Like I said though, you're still invited to come and visit or call the woman I've spoken of. But real people scare you, that's why you're here ranting and declaring old writ and bad ideas over and over again with a very self righteous spirit of self.

BTW: I'm NOT certain of my self-righteousness, that's why I pray, read the Word and allow the operation of the Spirit into my life. There are some things in the Word that are blatantly black and white. Acts 2:38
Don't worry, one day you'll get it, or want it. Most likely on your death bed though...

Now on the the funny pic thread... it has original thought there.

 

[dburkhead]

Oh, you have a belief system, and you are religious; it's called humanism. It started in a major during the Renaissance; and people like you, who by the way aren't original in any way, carried to more areas with wild imaginations and systems of thought--- which will never be original, just rehash of what has already been thought---. It's called a religion of self, self-love, self worship... a religion of self-sufficiency. Like I said though, you're still invited to come and visit or call the woman I've spoken of. But real people scare you, that's why you're here ranting and declaring old writ and bad ideas over and over again with a very self righteous spirit of self.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

BTW: I'm NOT certain of my self-righteousness, that's why I pray, read the Word and allow the operation of the Spirit into my life. There are some things in the Word that are blatantly black and white. Acts 2:38
Don't worry, one day you'll get it, or want it. Most likely on your death bed though...

And there is no righteousness like self-righteousness.

And certainty is no guarantee of correctness.

Now on the the funny pic thread... it has original thought there.

Bzzt. Guess where the whole "rainbow bridge" to heaven comes from. If you need a hint, google "Bifrost."

Christianity has been stealing other religions beliefs, holidays, symbols, etc. practically from day one.