PDA

View Full Version : Attn Mosque sympathizers!



Pages : [1] 2

Uncle Bill
08-24-2010, 06:30 PM
Are you remotely aware of what you are setting this nation up for? This 'foreigner' certainly does.

This Will Give You Cold Chills!



Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament.











In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: Who lost Europe ?'



Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .







Dear friends,







Thank you very much for inviting me.



I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.



First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .



The Europe you know is changing.



You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.



All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.



There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.



Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille, and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.



In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.



Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.



In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.



In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.



Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.



A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.



Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.



The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .



Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.



Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.



The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.



Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.


(CONT'D)

Uncle Bill
08-24-2010, 06:38 PM
Wilders cont'd

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.



This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.



The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.



Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .



Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.



We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.



Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.



http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wilders.asp


It's regretful to realize there are those on this BB calling themselves Americans, that can't see what is happening to the last really free nation on the planet, and are seemingly willing to turn over to their next generations, a country whose constitution they were unwilling to defend. May God have mercy on your souls.

UB

gman0046
08-24-2010, 06:42 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how the United States elected an african muslim as president.

Uncle Bill
08-24-2010, 06:55 PM
According to this, it's even worse than we may have thought.

UB





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jhx_2TqffE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jhx_2TqffE)

YardleyLabs
08-24-2010, 07:32 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how the United States elected an african muslim as president.
And rational historians are still trying to figure out when they did. Your warped imagination doesn't count.....

road kill
08-24-2010, 07:41 PM
And rational historians are still trying to figure out when they did. Your warped imagination doesn't count.....

Now now....you know what DNF said about attacking the messenger, not addressing the substance........:D



RK

Uncle Bill
08-24-2010, 07:44 PM
And rational historians are still trying to figure out when they did. Your warped imagination doesn't count.....


Sadly, Yardley, it's you and your ilk that are the warped in this nation. It's your crowd that brought about this warning to all Americans. It should be a tat on every voters forehead.

UB





"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."

-- Author Unknown

cotts135
08-24-2010, 07:50 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how the United States elected an african muslim as president.
Keep wondering since it is apparant you do not have a clue:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
08-24-2010, 08:18 PM
Sadly, Yardley, it's you and your ilk that are the warped in this nation. It's your crowd that brought about this warning to all Americans. It should be a tat on every voters forehead.

UB





"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."

-- Author Unknown
Of course, there were almost as many idiots voting for GWB the second time around (the first time, the majority evidenced much better sense). While the country survived Bush's policy idiocy, our economy did not. I remain convinced that Obama is better than the opponent he defeated. I am not convinced he will turn out to have been a good President. However, unless the Republicans decide to come up with a candidate that has not been mentioned as a serious possibility yet, I will probably vote for Obama again. I have certainly never liked a Presidential candidate enough to consider a tattoo. If I wouldn't do one for "Mom", I don't see why I would do one for anyone else.

luvmylabs23139
08-24-2010, 08:25 PM
Of course, there were almost as many idiots voting for GWB the second time around (the first time, the majority evidenced much better sense). While the country survived Bush's policy idiocy, our economy did not. I remain convinced that Obama is better than the opponent he defeated. I am not convinced he will turn out to have been a good President. However, unless the Republicans decide to come up with a candidate that has not been mentioned as a serious possibility yet, I will probably vote for Obama again. I have certainly never liked a Presidential candidate enough to consider a tattoo. If I wouldn't do one for "Mom", I don't see why I would do one for anyone else.

BUMFACE IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY! He is a socialist and is destroying this country.

zeus3925
08-24-2010, 08:37 PM
Sadly, Yardley, it's you and your ilk that are the warped in this nation. It's your crowd that brought about this warning to all Americans. It should be a tat on every voters forehead.

UB





"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."

-- Author Unknown

I'm with Yardley on this one. I thought that Mc Cain was a possibility for my support until he showed he knew nothing about the depth of the financial ruin we were facing. What finally capped it was picking a bimbo as his running mate.

As far as your quote, UB, got something new? This has been a constant line of GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party) from the moment it got spanked in the last election. It would seem that Chicken Little would be a better mascot for the GOP.

"Caelum est dedentum!" should be its motto.

Regards

YardleyLabs
08-24-2010, 08:39 PM
BUMFACE IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY! He is a socialist and is destroying this country.
Absent the "socialist" part, which is not true for any of our Presidents, you have summed up perfectly my view of Bush. I am hopeful, but not convinced that our country will ever recover from what he did to it.

luvmylabs23139
08-24-2010, 08:55 PM
This country may never recover from BUMFACE! He is a socialist and as such should be charged with treason today!

zeus3925
08-24-2010, 09:04 PM
This country may never recover from BUMFACE! He is a socialist and as such should be charged with treason today!

Thanks for your advice, Luv. Now, can we give our two cents about the government and citizenry in your home country?

paul young
08-24-2010, 09:41 PM
"We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know."

and what action would that be? genocide?-Paul

paul young
08-24-2010, 09:44 PM
This country may never recover from BUMFACE! He is a socialist and as such should be charged with treason today!

what do you care? you're not an American. you can't be BOTHERED to become an American...-Paul

luvmylabs23139
08-24-2010, 09:52 PM
what do you care? you're not an American. you can't be BOTHERED to become an American...-Paul

I am married to an American who was born here,
I unlike 50% of the population I pay federal income taxes.
Taxpayers care, we hate having our money stolen by unga bunga in the jungle welfare slime.

depittydawg
08-24-2010, 09:53 PM
According to this, it's even worse than we may have thought.

UB





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jhx_2TqffE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jhx_2TqffE)

Be afraid. Be very afraid... Don't you get a little tired of this message?

luvmylabs23139
08-24-2010, 09:54 PM
Thanks for your advice, Luv. Now, can we give our two cents about the government and citizenry in your home country?

I happen to pay Us federal income taxes unlike half the population!
Taxpayers should vote not the slime that steals other peoples money!

dnf777
08-24-2010, 09:58 PM
"We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know."

and what action would that be? genocide?-Paul

thank you. I was wondering the same thing.

I wonder if these bigots even KNOW any Muslims? Or do they form their opinions from watching Fox news?

I've worked with many Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, atheists, deists...and all groups have some genuinely nice people, and some real a$$holes. I don't happen to agree with some of their religious teachings, but I also disagree with some of my Catholic upbringing.

The RNC and its press division, FoxNews, seem to be stirring up hatred and fear of Muslims in order to gain political points in the upcoming elections. Their strategy has evolved into a scare the populace, then pretend to be the only source of security and comfort. I must admit, it worked beautifully for them in 2000 and 2004. When they destroyed the economy, and the false pretense of a threat that got us into war was exposed, they couldn't pull the same old trick in 06 and 08. Hopefully we haven't forgotten so much, that we give the country back to them so soon!

paul young
08-24-2010, 09:59 PM
I am married to an American who was born here,
I unlike 50% of the population I pay federal income taxes.
Taxpayers care, we hate having our money stolen by unga bunga in the jungle welfare slime.

ok, what did i say that wasn't true?

you do realize that slightly over 24% of the poulation is under the age of 18, don't you? most of these CITIZENS are not old enough to work and pay taxes. then there is an unknown percentage of elderly people with insufficient income to tax.....

so your 50% "statistic" is ungulate manure.....

chances are good that i pay as much income tax, or more, than you do. are you looking to be awarded some kind of medal for paying tax?-Paul

dnf777
08-24-2010, 10:00 PM
I happen to pay Us federal income taxes unlike half the population!
Taxpayers should vote not the slime that steals other peoples money!

One thing that really irks me is people who don't vote, telling me how I should vote!

dnf777
08-24-2010, 10:05 PM
Be afraid. Be very afraid... Don't you get a little tired of this message?

Fear peddling is all they got!

Bad as Obama's economic policy may be, theirs was worse.....and they're afraid people haven't forgotten yet! Their only chance of winning elections is to divert voter's attention away from who got us into this mess, and the quickest way to do that is with fear. Fear of brown people always seems to work best for them, hence all the anti-muslim propaganda. Can't wait for the Willie al-bin Horton ads to start running!

luvmylabs23139
08-24-2010, 10:06 PM
ok, what did i say that wasn't true?

chances are good that i pay as much income tax, or more, than you do. are you looking to be awarded some kind of medal for paying tax?-Paul

Half the darn population does not, they should not be allowed to vote to steal the other peoples money!
Why should those that work hard pay for those that sit on their fat butts (and yes a ton of them are obese)?
Why is working hard punished and being a fat lazy welfare slime rewarded?:confused:

luvmylabs23139
08-24-2010, 10:09 PM
One thing that really irks me is people who don't vote, telling me how I should vote!

Of course I could be like the guy that voted illegally and now wants citizenship and homeland security sent him to his local vote registration office to request he be purged from the voter list so he can become a citizen.
They should have deported his azz.

zeus3925
08-24-2010, 10:28 PM
I happen to pay Us federal income taxes unlike half the population!
Taxpayers should vote not the slime that steals other peoples money!


I'll vote for whomever I please. Citizens are entitled to vote how they see fit. I'm not going heed to the preachings of any alien nor accept any grief for my choice from a non-American.

zeus3925
08-24-2010, 10:37 PM
Of course I could be like the guy that voted illegally and now wants citizenship and homeland security sent him to his local vote registration office to request he be purged from the voter list so he can become a citizen.
They should have deported his azz.

If you believe that yarn, then try it! I bet the taxpayers will buy you a ticket back home.

ducknwork
08-25-2010, 07:35 AM
Fear peddling is all they got!

Bad as Obama's economic policy may be, theirs was worse.....and they're afraid people haven't forgotten yet! Their only chance of winning elections is to divert voter's attention away from who got us into this mess, and the quickest way to do that is with fear. Fear of brown people always seems to work best for them, hence all the anti-muslim propaganda. Can't wait for the Willie al-bin Horton ads to start running!

What was different about it?

I thought we keep hearing how Obama has simply continued the Bush policies.

Ken Bora
08-25-2010, 08:10 AM
I am married to an American who was born here.

And jeepers, when he decides to upgrade to a newer model your going to be just another illegal alien.:rolleyes:






.

aandw
08-25-2010, 08:40 AM
What was different about it?

I thought we keep hearing how Obama has simply continued the Bush policies.

good question. i would like to know what the economic policies of bush that have ruined this country? not trying to be a smart butt. what did he do that ruined our economy and what has obama done to fix it?

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 08:59 AM
And rational historians


Jeff,

By your own admission you do not believe in the biblical God...am I correct in saying this?

Also, you admit to believing in evolution...in fact you have defended that concept here many times.

May I ask from where in your worldview any notion of rationality arises?...a worldview by your admission which has no God and understands that everything that exists is a result of chemicals acting and reacting in a random chance process with the ultimate goal of self-preservation in an atmosphere of survival of the fittest.

Further, if you really adhere to such a worldview then explain to me how you know your senses are reliable...I mean you say "rational historian" as if randomly acting chemicals bestow a reliable sense of past events.



.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 09:03 AM
I've worked with many Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, atheists, deists...and all groups have some genuinely nice people, and some real a$$holes. I don't happen to agree with some of their religious teachings, but I also disagree with some of my Catholic upbringing.



So in your worldview YOU are the ultimate authority?

If that is your contention then may I ask from where/whom did you get the credentials to establish yourself as that authority?



.

YardleyLabs
08-25-2010, 09:56 AM
Jeff,

By your own admission you do not believe in the biblical God...am I correct in saying this?

Also, you admit to believing in evolution...in fact you have defended that concept here many times.

May I ask from where in your worldview any notion of rationality arises?...a worldview by your admission which has no God and understands that everything that exists is a result of chemicals acting and reacting in a random chance process with the ultimate goal of self-preservation in an atmosphere of survival of the fittest.

Further, if you really adhere to such a worldview then explain to me how you know your senses are reliable...I mean you say "rational historian" as if randomly acting chemicals bestow a reliable sense of past events.



.
Keith,

Reason existed long before Christ was born or Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. Neither reason nor morality nor altruism or charity depend on belief in a deity. In the words of Déscartes, cogito ergo sum.

road kill
08-25-2010, 10:00 AM
So in your worldview YOU are the ultimate authority?

If that is your contention then may I ask from where/whom did you get the credentials to establish yourself as that authority?



.


In all fairness, this applies to many if not all of US here.

In my world and my veiw of it I am the ultimate authority.
The many roads and paths I have followed and been down brought me here.
Same with Mr. Yardley.

Right or wrong??

Neither I say.


"Keep on keepin' on".........cause road kill says so.


(Keith, I in no way mean this as disrespect toward you)


RK

dnf777
08-25-2010, 10:02 AM
So in your worldview YOU are the ultimate authority?

If that is your contention then may I ask from where/whom did you get the credentials to establish yourself as that authority?



.

Its called relaying my experience. I have had the fascinating opportunity to work with a vast diversity in the medical field, at some world renown centers that attract talent from all corners of the earth. In no way does that support your wild-arse claims you made on my behalf, thank you very much. I could just as easily comment that YOU seem to think you're the new-age prophet, trying to convert all of us to YOUR specific brand of belief. (I know, the ONE TRUE belief)

I just don't think that many of the muslim fearing/hating people in this movement even know any muslims. So if you have something substantive to add, by all means.....but just to take romper-room shots at others, don't waste your time.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 10:41 AM
Keith,

Reason existed long before Christ was born or Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.


That is quite true Jeff...just as the bible clearly teaches...but that statement is irrelevent to my question to you.

Since "reason" has existed prior to those events, by your admission, I would like for you to explain how a random chance universe gives rise to uniformity, logic, and or absolute morality (randomness and natural selection via survival of the fittest are the MO remember). Tell me where/how in an God-less evolutionary worldview that any of those preconditions of intelligibility originated.




Neither reason nor morality nor altruism or charity depend on belief in a deity.


The key phrase here Jeff is "belief" in a deity...and you are correct in that one's belief in a deity does not generate or alter the existence of logic, uniformity, or absolute morality; in fact, those laws exist whether you believe in them or not.

So, again, if those preconditions of intelligibility exist, either in agreement with our beliefs or totally apart from our beliefs, from where do they originate in an atheistic evolutionary worldview?

I mean they absolutely make sense in the Christian worldview which is based on the biblical God Who cannot lie; Who is altogether good; Who is Holy, Just and Righteous; Who is immutable (He cannot change); Who is omnipresent (everywhere at the same time), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipowerful (has all power)...But where do those eternal attributes exist in atheism or evolutionism?




charity


Charity presupposes a standard of goodness Jeff...where in a God-less evolutionary worldview does goodness arise? Remember, its random and based on survival of the fittest. Why would you or any atheistic evolutionist care about charity since it adds absolutely nothing to your survival value?




cogito ergo sum


Explain how this answers my questions regarding evolution?

"I think, therefore I am"...again, that presupposes a logical order which presupposses logic.





.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 11:16 AM
Its called relaying my experience

That should be "relying" should it not?...at any rate:

Paul wrote extensively about living a life that flows from an impure heart. Paul said that such a hardened heart produces in an individual ignorance and separation from God. Paul said that an impure/hardened heart would cause one to follow after futile thinking. Relying on one's own mind apart and aside from the biblical God as the ultimate authority is rather foolish according to Paul.


Ephesians 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.



1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.(NIV)



Paul wrote such things for this reason...



Colossians 2:2 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.(NIV)

You see, apart from Christ nobody can know anything. ALL the treasures of both wisdom and knowledge are Christ's.









.

YardleyLabs
08-25-2010, 11:43 AM
That is quite true Jeff...just as the bible clearly teaches...but that statement is irrelevent to my question to you.

Since "reason" has existed prior to those events, by your admission, I would like for you to explain how a random chance universe gives rise to uniformity, logic, and or absolute morality (randomness and natural selection via survival of the fittest are the MO remember). Tell me where/how in an God-less evolutionary worldview that any of those preconditions of intelligibility originated.




The key phrase here Jeff is "belief" in a deity...and you are correct in that one's belief in a deity does not generate or alter the existence of logic, uniformity, or absolute morality; in fact, those laws exist whether you believe in them or not.

So, again, if those preconditions of intelligibility exist, either in agreement with our beliefs or totally apart from our beliefs, from where do they originate in an atheistic evolutionary worldview?

I mean they absolutely make sense in the Christian worldview which is based on the biblical God Who cannot lie; Who is altogether good; Who is Holy, Just and Righteous; Who is immutable (He cannot change); Who is omnipresent (everywhere at the same time), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipowerful (has all power)...But where do those eternal attributes exist in atheism or evolutionism?




Charity presupposes a standard of goodness Jeff...where in a God-less evolutionary worldview does goodness arise? Remember, its random and based on survival of the fittest. Why would you or any atheistic evolutionist care about charity since it adds absolutely nothing to your survival value?




Explain how this answers my questions regarding evolution?

"I think, therefore I am"...again, that presupposes a logical order which presupposses logic.





.
You place a great deal of emphasis on absolute morality, but few things are less absolute.There are common moral themes across cultures and across time. However, there have been strong shifts in morality as well (witness, for example, shifting perspectives on the rules of Leviticus). What we call morality is as much a survival trait for humans as a social species as any other of our evolved characteristics. Without social rules concerning murder, protection of property, and protection of familial relationships, tribal communities could not have survived. Altruism and charity -- as those terms reference specific types of actions -- are not simply human traits. They are found in all social species (e.g. ants, bees, wasps). You talk about evolution as a random process. However, it is anything but random. It is a species survival directed process and that direction is very powerful.

ducknwork
08-25-2010, 12:19 PM
Fear peddling is all they got!

Bad as Obama's economic policy may be, theirs was worse.....and they're afraid people haven't forgotten yet! Their only chance of winning elections is to divert voter's attention away from who got us into this mess, and the quickest way to do that is with fear. Fear of brown people always seems to work best for them, hence all the anti-muslim propaganda. Can't wait for the Willie al-bin Horton ads to start running!


What was different about it?

I thought we keep hearing how Obama has simply continued the Bush policies.

I hear crickets.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 12:48 PM
Your fun to pick on Dave,,,you supply me with more ammo than I'll ever use.:p

Again If you rely totally on your experiences and what your mind manufactures and ultimately forms what you believe,,then you are your own god. I forget but there is a word for that Theres even many whole chapters devoted to that subject.
And those bible characters didn't have the internet:)

Pete

Well, with all that ammo you're stockpiling, be careful you don't blow yourself up. And please, if I'm not working or burning time on this forum, I usually am outside or have a book in my hands trying to expand my horizons. That is why perhaps I'm more accepting of people with differing views than mine than some others. Not as much as others, I might add.

I believe in one creator. He may have different faces and different names or forms to different people. I can easily accept that. Some here, would insist that he appears just as he does in the paintings above their beds, with no room for dissent whatsoever. That is why they feel the need to protest mosques being built. Just sayin'.....

dnf777
08-25-2010, 12:56 PM
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]You see, apart from Christ nobody can know anything. ALL the treasures of both wisdom and knowledge are Christ's.


.



There's no arguing with that.

I guess all those Egyptians, Romans, Incas, Peruvians, Jews, Hindus are just a bunch of idiots? And I thought they all contributed to the human experience here on Earth in their own ways. My bad.

Cody Covey
08-25-2010, 01:11 PM
There's no arguing with that.

I guess all those Egyptians, Romans, Incas, Peruvians, Jews, Hindus are just a bunch of idiots? And I thought they all contributed to the human experience here on Earth in their own ways. My bad.

who needs math, science, calendars, and forms of government when we have European christians :)

traz6
08-25-2010, 01:39 PM
good question. i would like to know what the economic policies of bush that have ruined this country? not trying to be a smart butt. what did he do that ruined our economy and what has obama done to fix it?

Nobody has made any comments on this question? This is always what gets me when both sides start talking about the other's "policies". I'm wondering what the more left leaning contributors think occurred during the Bush Presidency that would not have happend during the same time if Gore would have been elected. Do you think there would not have been a housing bubble and collapse? Do you think there would not have been the derivative trading that sacked the financial world?

Deficit spending is another issue, and most true Conservatives are not happy with how Bush did in that regard. However, that's not what caused the current economic slump. I hold that people put way too much expectations on the sitting President for the economy during their administration. I think thier impact is several years later and in that light both Bush and Obama have severely wieghted us down.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 01:44 PM
There's no arguing with that.



I am glad we can agree on something;)





I guess all those Egyptians, Romans, Incas, Peruvians, Jews, Hindus are just a bunch of idiots? And I thought they all contributed to the human experience here on Earth in their own ways. My bad.


Is there an argument there?

You made a few arbitrary statements but what is your point with relation to my questions?





.

road kill
08-25-2010, 01:48 PM
I am glad we can agree on something;)





Is there an argument there?

You made a few arbitrary statements but what is your point with relation to my questions?





.

Here is a tip;

Don't ever expect a direct answer from the "independent middle of the roaders!".
Won't happen!!


RK

Roger Perry
08-25-2010, 01:48 PM
Nobody has made any comments on this question? This is always what gets me when both sides start talking about the other's "policies". I'm wondering what the more left leaning contributors think occurred during the Bush Presidency that would not have happend during the same time if Gore would have been elected. Do you think there would not have been a housing bubble and collapse? Do you think there would not have been the derivative trading that sacked the financial world?

Deficit spending is another issue, and most true Conservatives are not happy with how Bush did in that regard. However, that's not what caused the current economic slump. I hold that people put way too much expectations on the sitting President for the economy during their administration. I think thier impact is several years later and in that light both Bush and Obama have severely wieghted us down.

I don't think Gore would have gotten us into a war with Iraq based on the beliefs that Bush had.

road kill
08-25-2010, 01:50 PM
I don't think Gore would have gotten us into a war with Iraq based on the beliefs that Bush had.

You don't think so?

That's solid proof...........:rolleyes:


RK

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 01:52 PM
who needs math, science, calendars, and forms of government when we have European christians :smile:


First, for those disciplines to be able to exist there must first exist laws of logic, uniformity, and absolute morality (as I have already asserted)...otherwise none of those disciplines would be possible.

My question remains why or how in an atheistic evolutionary worldview does logic, uniformity, and absolute morality exist?

The last part of your statement is a fallacy of equivocation. The assertion made by me is that apart from the biblical God none of the preconditions of intelligibility can possibly exist. I never said anything about Eurpoean Christians...you made that switch in terms on your own and that is fallacious...it is not rational.




.

traz6
08-25-2010, 01:55 PM
I don't think Gore would have gotten us into a war with Iraq based on the beliefs that Bush had.

How does the war in IRAQ affect the current economy? The debt from it may impact monetary policy at some point, but that war (right or wrong) did not cause the recession.

YardleyLabs
08-25-2010, 01:57 PM
Nobody has made any comments on this question? This is always what gets me when both sides start talking about the other's "policies". I'm wondering what the more left leaning contributors think occurred during the Bush Presidency that would not have happend during the same time if Gore would have been elected. Do you think there would not have been a housing bubble and collapse? Do you think there would not have been the derivative trading that sacked the financial world?

Deficit spending is another issue, and most true Conservatives are not happy with how Bush did in that regard. However, that's not what caused the current economic slump. I hold that people put way too much expectations on the sitting President for the economy during their administration. I think thier impact is several years later and in that light both Bush and Obama have severely weighted us down.
Oh, where to begin. Obviously, what if games are purely speculative. First, the massive tax cuts implemented in 2001 and 2003 would not have happened. There would have been a much more modest tax cut targeted almost entirely to the middle class. That would have prevented the massive deficit build-up and possibly have reduced the potential for the housing bubble. The attack on 2001 would probably still have happened, although the odds of preventing it probably would have been slightly improved without the de-emphasis on terrorism that occurred immediately following the change in administrations. We would not have invaded Iraq, but we would have invaded Afghanistan without drawing troops out to support the Iraqi war. By doing that we might well have finished the job against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden then as opposed to giving them years to rebuild following our initial victories. All in all, I believe our economy would be much stronger and that our political power in the world, while still under challenge from an increasingly powerful China and India, would be stronger as well.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 01:58 PM
Here is a tip;

Don't ever expect a direct answer from the "independent middle of the roaders!".
Won't happen!!


I may not get an answer...after all there is no rational answer to my questions apart from accepting the existence of the biblical God...

However, there is a problem with the line of thinking which proposes a middle of the road position; there is no middle road.

Jesus the Christ said regarding miidle of the roaders:

"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." Matthew 12:30





.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 02:00 PM
I am glad we can agree on something;)



Is there an argument there?

You made a few arbitrary statements but what is your point with relation to my questions?



.


Nope. No argument at all. You're absolutely right. Everyone else in the world is absolutely wrong. I just realized that.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 02:02 PM
It is a species survival directed process and that direction is very powerful.


That is fallacious Jeff...what you are asserting is a fallacy called reification.

Evolution is nothing more than a concept. Evolution has no power because evolution has no being. To attribute causality and animation to a concept is irrational.




.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 02:03 PM
...after all there is no rational answer to my questions apart from accepting the existence of the biblical God...

[/COLOR]Matthew 12:30



.


Did my other post fall into line? I mean, I admit that ONLY YOU and YOUR interpretation of the universe is correct. Infallible, in fact. You pretty much say that above, so I guess I better just acquiesce and agree with everything you say.

BTW, did God tell you this?

Cody Covey
08-25-2010, 02:04 PM
I may not get an answer...after all there is no rational answer to my questions apart from accepting the existence of the biblical God...

However, there is a problem with the line of thinking which proposes a middle of the road position; there is no middle road.

Jesus the Christ said regarding miidle of the roaders:

"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." Matthew 12:30
My point was that you suggest that Christ gives us all the knowledge we have now when in fact the basis for almost all our knowledge comes from cultures that either had no idea who Christ was or just chose to believe in their own gods. other then genocide what has the christian culture given us?

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 02:09 PM
Nope. No argument at all. You're absolutely right. Everyone else in the world is absolutely wrong. I just realized that.


Glad you see things a bit clearer:cool:

By the way, I am certainly not the only person in the world who recognizes God as the ultimate authority so your statement that "everybody else in the world is wrong" is irrational.

Further, God has revealed Himself through nature in a general way, through the bible in a special way, and through Jesus the Christ in a personal way. He has done so in such fashion so that anyone who would deny His existence or His attributes would do so at their own expense:

Romans 1:20 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 men are without excuse. (NIV)




.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 02:09 PM
So Keith, now that I've accepted your word as the Holy Infallable Truth, please preach unto thee....thou havest a question for thou.

What happeneth to the fools (like as I used to be 10 minutes ago), such as the Jews, the Hindus, and anyone else but Biblical Christians? Do they all go to he!!? (I'm referring to the Biblical afterworld for non-believers...I hope not a taboo 4-letter word in this case)

What about the Native Americans who perished after turning away Missionary teachings? Are they crisp by now? I'm really confused, and all we have here is a heretic Catholic Church, which is not a strict Bible-based program, and thus not able to render a true answer.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 02:13 PM
Glad you see things a bit clearer:cool:

By the way, I am certainly not the only person in the world who recognizes God as the ultimate authority so your statement that "everybody else in the world is wrong" is irrational.

Further, God has revealed Himself through nature in a general way, through the bible in a special way, and through Jesus the Christ in a personal way. He has done so in such fashion so that anyone who would deny His existence or His attributes would do so at their own expense:

Romans 1:20 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 men are without excuse. (NIV)




.

For the Love of God! Capitalize "Bible" in all references! Surely if we capitalize our names, the Word of God deserves at least the same respect!

I apologize for my irrational response. I meant "everyone else in the world except your fellow Biblical Christians who agree entirely with you" is wrong, and not worth the gum stuck on the bottom of your shoe!

road kill
08-25-2010, 02:13 PM
So Keith, now that I've accepted your word as the Holy Infallable Truth, please preach unto thee....thou havest a question for thou.

What happeneth to the fools (like as I used to be 10 minutes ago), such as the Jews, the Hindus, and anyone else but Biblical Christians? Do they all go to he!!? (I'm referring to the Biblical afterworld for non-believers...I hope not a taboo 4-letter word in this case)

What about the Native Americans who perished after turning away Missionary teachings? Are they crisp by now? I'm really confused, and all we have here is a heretic Catholic Church, which is not a strict Bible-based program, and thus not able to render a true answer.
Ah yes, the classic "elitest" straw man argument.

Nicely played.......


RK

traz6
08-25-2010, 02:14 PM
Oh, where to begin. Obviously, what if games are purely speculative. First, the massive tax cuts implemented in 2001 and 2003 would not have happened. There would have been a much more modest tax cut targeted almost entirely to the middle class. That would have prevented the massive deficit build-up and possibly have reduced the potential for the housing bubble. The attack on 2001 would probably still have happened, although the odds of preventing it probably would have been slightly improved without the de-emphasis on terrorism that occurred immediately following the change in administrations. We would not have invaded Iraq, but we would have invaded Afghanistan without drawing troops out to support the Iraqi war. By doing that we might well have finished the job against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden then as opposed to giving them years to rebuild following our initial victories. All in all, I believe our economy would be much stronger and that our political power in the world, while still under challenge from an increasingly powerful China and India, would be stronger as well.

The wars are a completely different debate. I agree, 9/11 was put into motion before the 2000 election and would have occurred no matter who won. The response to it I'm sure would have been different if Gore was in office.
I'm talking about 'Bush's economic policies' because that's the current democratic war cry - "the Republicans put the economy in the ditch." Bush's tax cuts were enacted because of an expected surplus. It was only after the economic downturn that the tax cuts caused deficits. So if you want to say that the Bush tax cuts and resulting money given back to the people caused too much excess in the economy and spurred the recession then yes that would be a "Bush plolicy" that affected the economy. I think that's pretty thin, but I'm not a good enough economist to tell you you're absolutely wrong.

YardleyLabs
08-25-2010, 02:15 PM
That is fallacious Jeff...what you are asserting is a fallacy called reification.

Evolution is nothing more than a concept. Evolution has no power because evolution has no being. To attribute causality and animation to a concept is irrational.




.
Well, there go all those God arguments.....

Evolution is a process that happens measurably over time. And by the way, the world is still billions of years old. Your arguments are circular. We should believe in God because he tells us to in the scriptures that he has given us. Take away belief and all of your arguments turn into smoke. That doesn't mean they are wrong, only that they cannot be traced to reason. Ultimately, your heart tells you to believe something.. So does mine. The only difference is that you are certain that your heart holds the truth and all others are wrong. My heart tells me that there is no single , ultimate truth and that there are elements of truth in almost all religions and philosophies. What I do not believe or accept is the notion of a singular, inerrant truth.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 02:16 PM
Ah yes, the classic "elitest" straw man argument.

Nicely played.......


RK

You Heretic! How dareth thou question my sincerity?!
I am just a poor lost sheep, returning to the flock, and you greet me like this?
May thou steppeth in a pile of ye fresh dog poo!

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 02:21 PM
My point was that you suggest that Christ gives us all the knowledge we have now

That is a misrepresentation of the scripture I posted. Here it is again for clarification:

"...in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Colossians 2:3 (NIV)


when in fact the basis for almost all our knowledge comes from cultures that either had no idea who Christ was or just chose to believe in their own gods.

Can you provide proof of your claims here? Where are the facts that you allude to? Are you certain that the people had no knowledge of Christ? After all Romans 1:20 says completely the opposite about such things.




other then genocide what has the christian culture given us?


Perhaps a bit of historical research would assist you with answers to your question.




.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 02:25 PM
That is a misrepresentation of the scripture I posted. Here it is again for clarification:

"...in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Colossians 2:3 (NIV)



Can you provide proof of your claims here? Where are the facts that you allude to? Are you certain that the people had no knowledge of Christ? After all Romans 1:20 says completely the opposite about such things.




Perhaps a bit of historical research would assist you with answers to your question.



.

Keith, he doesn't understand how Biblical Christians masqueraded as Egyptians, Jews, Arabs, Persians.....throughout time, and gave us the arts and sciences, while the organized religions posed as obstructionists to the advancement of human knowledge, in order to not appear vain.

Cody Covey
08-25-2010, 02:28 PM
That is a misrepresentation of the scripture I posted. Here it is again for clarification:

"...in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Colossians 2:3 (NIV)



Can you provide proof of your claims here? Where are the facts that you allude to? Are you certain that the people had no knowledge of Christ? After all Romans 1:20 says completely the opposite about such things.




Perhaps a bit of historical research would assist you with answers to your question.




.Explain how the Peruvians and Mayans knew about Christ. Or maybe the Egyptians. this is getting good. Go ahead and tell me what Christians as a culture gave us to advance the world....other than religion?

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 02:36 PM
Evolution is a process that happens measurably over time.

I ask you for proof of that Jeff. That is an arbitrary statement which has no scientific data to support it.



And by the way, the world is still billions of years old.

I disagree with that assertion.


Your arguments are circular.

And yours aren't? Can you defend a hill in battle while standing on that hill? I say you can!


We should believe in God because he tells us to in the scriptures that he has given us.

"In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." Acts 17:30 (NIV)


Take away belief and all of your arguments turn into smoke.

Jeff, I will try and type slowly so you can understand...it...is...not...about...belief...The laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and the existence of absolute morality are preconditions of intelligibility. Where do you find those necessary components in your worldview? They do not exist! In fact they are contrary to your worldview.



That doesn't mean they are wrong,

I am glad we agree on that!


only that they cannot be traced to reason.

Apart from the biblical God reason nor anything else could possibly exist. God has necessary being Jeff.


Ultimately, your heart tells you to believe something

That is a fallacy...my heart does not tell me anything...


The only difference is that you are certain that your heart holds the truth and all others are wrong.

I am certain that apart from the biblical God that truth has no existence, logic does not exist, uniformity in nature does not exist, and absolute morality???what would that be based upon?



My heart tells me that there is no single , ultimate truth and that there are elements of truth in almost all religions and philosophies. What I do not believe or accept is the notion of a singular, inerrant truth.


You may not admit it Jeff but you are promoting attributes that only exist in the Christian worldview. They do not exist in any other world religion, they certainly do not exist in atheism, and they could never exist in evolution.

Read again this passage Jeff:

18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Ephesians 4:18



.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 02:43 PM
Explain how the Peruvians and Mayans knew about Christ. Or maybe the Egyptians.


I would be happy to...make sure you read the entire passage and tell me if the folks you cited wound up doing in worship what Paul writes they did (they in fact did all of those things):


Romans 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 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 men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (NIV)




.

Cody Covey
08-25-2010, 02:52 PM
Again how did they know about God. If you did not have the Bible would you know about God? Would you maybe rationalize your existance with more than one God like Native Americans did? I ask for your proof that they knew about God and you quote a passage that essentially just says they did because they were alive. Before the first time you went to church or were explained God and the Bible did you know about God just because you were alive. I think you would be hard pressed to say that the Mayans were a dark and sexually impure people. And again impure only by a God they knew nothing of. They were 10,000 miles away from where Christianity and Judaism originated how did they know.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 02:53 PM
So Keith, what happens to Muslims and Jews when they die?

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 03:37 PM
Again how did they know about God.


Cody I am sorry if you are struggling with this issue. I cannot say any more than I have by quoting Romans 1:18-25. God said Himself that He made us in His image. He said He has given all men knowledge of Himself through the things He has created. He gave further knowledge via the written word and even further knowledge via Christ the Word incarnate.

Men suppress all of that truth in unrighteousness according to God. It is not that they do not know...they DO know and yet they suppress that knowledge because of sin.

The result of that truth suppression is a continued hardeneing of the heart to the point where God gives them over to the lusts of their fleshly desires.

That is what Romans 1 says...

As a side note...in the atheistic evolutionary worldview why would you care about others who may be perishing?



.

troy schwab
08-25-2010, 03:39 PM
So Keith, what happens to Muslims and Jews when they die?

Most get buried..... properly.

Cody Covey
08-25-2010, 03:45 PM
Cody I am sorry if you are struggling with this issue. I cannot say any more than I have by quoting Romans 1:18-25. God said Himself that He made us in His image. He said He has given all men knowledge of Himself through the things He has created. He gave further knowledge via the written word and even further knowledge via Christ the Word incarnate.

Men suppress all of that truth in unrighteousness according to God. It is not that they do not know...they DO know and yet they suppress that knowledge because of sin.

The result of that truth suppression is a continued hardeneing of the heart to the point where God gives them over to the lusts of their fleshly desires.

That is what Romans 1 says...

As a side note...in the atheistic evolutionary worldview why would you care about others who may be perishing?



.circular arguments are fun and all but I'm not going to change your mind about anything and you have no idea what i believe to be able to change mine so unless you can provide some facts other than they know because they are alive which makes absolutely no sense. I suppose I'm done with this argument.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 03:57 PM
So Keith, what happens to Muslims and Jews when they die?



I can tell you what the bible says about those who die apart from repenting of their sins and acknowledging Jesus the Christ as Lord:

First, this same question was asked of Peter in Acts chapter 2...

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."



The question was asked of Jesus by Nicodemus in the Gospel of John...

Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." John 3:3 (NIV)




Peter clarifies the necessity of faith in Jesus as the only means of salvation...

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 (NASB)


In terms of what happens to those who reject Christ this may give some insight:

The Sheep and the Goats

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."



But again I must ask...in an atheistic evolutionary worldview why would you be concerned about what happens to Jews or Muslims? According to those worldviews it is survival of the fittest where the most fit dominates...right?




.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 04:00 PM
circular arguments are fun and all


I gave you absolute proof from the bible as a direct answer to your question. You may not prefer the biblical answer but that is the answer...and it is not circular.

.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 04:07 PM
But again I must ask...in an atheistic evolutionary worldview why would you be concerned about what happens to Jews or Muslims? According to those worldviews it is survival of the fittest where the most fit dominates...right?




.

Who are you calling an atheist? Better not be me, brother!

But do I gather that you are saying that hell is overflowing with Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc....Everyone who's walked the Earth and died without the benefit of Jesus Christ?

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 04:14 PM
The laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and the existence of absolute morality (read God) are preconditions of intelligibility. Where do you find those necessary components in any worldview other than the Christian worldview which is based on the biblical God? Please provide an answer to this question!!



The question I have posed above has yet to be addressed by anyone. You guys have dodged the question by establishing strawman arguments, issuing ad hominem arguments, and committing argumentation fallacies of all sorts...but not one answer!

I have taken my time to answer your questions...


.

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 04:24 PM
Who are you calling an atheist? Better not be me, brother!

Please tell me about your faith in Jesus. I am not being snarky, but if you are a believer then you should be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you about your faith:


1 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)

15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.




But do I gather that you are saying that hell is overflowing with Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc....Everyone who's walked the Earth and died without the benefit of Jesus Christ?


You must have deduced that from the passages I posted since I never wrote any opinion about the issue. I quoted scripture and you deduced that from what I quoted...

That does not mean I disagree with the scriptures but you cannot say that your deduction is from my personal statements.




.

troy schwab
08-25-2010, 04:27 PM
1 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)




How many versions are there now...... just curious?

dnf777
08-25-2010, 04:36 PM
Please tell me about your faith in Jesus. I am not being snarky, but if you are a believer then you should be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you about your faith:


1 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)


.
We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfilment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.


Hmmm...it doesn't mention you name. Sorry, you got cheated.
I hope you agree 100% with all of the above. Its the ONLY way you can get into Heaven, ya know. :(

meckardt
08-25-2010, 04:44 PM
Geert Wilders movie about Islam "Fitna"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQdZgojOFI

dnf777
08-25-2010, 05:35 PM
But I think you want the mosque there because you hate white people:rolleyes:

See I can be absurd too. But I have to work at it:p;-)

Pete


I only hate some white people. ;)

As I get older, and realize we only have so much energy to burn, I try to spend less and less of it on hatred. Its bad energy. I used to get all worked up and hate this and that when I was younger (and a republican), but I'm much better now. :D

Franco
08-25-2010, 05:46 PM
I may not get an answer...after all there is no rational answer to my questions apart from accepting the existence of the biblical God...

.

Keith, there is nothing rational in your questions or answers.

Yardley did a good job of answering your question in a previous post, it is just that you ignore his answers.

Take the blinders off, open your mind and let free thought flow for once!

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 10:11 PM
I hope you agree 100% with all of the above. Its the ONLY way you can get into Heaven, ya know.


So you are confessing here your faith in Jesus the Christ by embracing the Nicene creed as your statement of faith??? Great!!

The creed is a good creed. It was written as a confessional statement for Christians. Your statement about it, the creed, being the only way to heaven omits one vital aspect however...one that Jesus Himself emphatically taught...repentence. Have you repented of your sins and embraced the Lordship of Christ?

Repentence is a necessary part of salvation. One must repent and embrace by faith the Lordship of Jesus the Christ in order to be saved; that according to the bible. After conversion/salvation one may cite a creed such as the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith and be accurate.



.


.

dnf777
08-25-2010, 10:15 PM
Have you repented of your sins and embraced the Lordship of Christ?



.

I have my repentance card with four sins punched. One more, and my next sin is free!

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 10:18 PM
Keith, there is nothing rational in your questions or answers.


Again no answer to my question...just arbitrary assertions with no foundation whatsoever.



Yardley did a good job of answering your question in a previous post, it is just that you ignore his answers.


No...he changed the meaning of some words and reasserted his position which is fallacious. Nobody has answered my questions.


Take the blinders off, open your mind and let free thought flow for once!

In an atheistic evolutionary worldview Franco how does one explain the ability to compose thoughts? Random chance processes and chemical actions/reactions have no basis for thought composition.

The fact that you are even able to compose a thought is proof that God exists and that He is Sovereign.




.

depittydawg
08-25-2010, 10:18 PM
[QUOTE=No evolution, no monkey ancestors, no big bang!


.[/QUOTE]

God gave Man a brain to discover his creations; not to bury his head in the sand and ignore them.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-25-2010, 10:20 PM
I have my repentance card with four sins punched. One more, and my next sin is free!

Now Dave,

I am a Christian, and I dont much like the sarcasim that is dished out by the left with regards to my faith....

BUT......

That was a GOOD GOOD GOOD ONE!!!!!!!!!!! I did get a long hearty chuckle at it.....;););)

seriously a good deep belly laugh...I know you know the kind, something you see, or hear or read that really makes you have a true laugh.

good one!!!

NCA

YardleyLabs
08-25-2010, 10:25 PM
I ask you for proof of that Jeff. That is an arbitrary statement which has no scientific data to support it.




I disagree with that assertion.



And yours aren't? Can you defend a hill in battle while standing on that hill? I say you can!



"In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." Acts 17:30 (NIV)



Jeff, I will try and type slowly so you can understand...it...is...not...about...belief...The laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and the existence of absolute morality are preconditions of intelligibility. Where do you find those necessary components in your worldview? They do not exist! In fact they are contrary to your worldview.


,

I am glad we agree on that!

.

Apart from the biblical God reason nor anything else could possibly exist. God has necessary being Jeff.



That is a fallacy...my heart does not tell me anything...



I am certain that apart from the biblical God that truth has no existence, logic does not exist, uniformity in nature does not exist, and absolute morality???what would that be based upon?



You may not admit it Jeff but you are promoting attributes that only exist in the Christian worldview. They do not exist in any other world religion, they certainly do not exist in atheism, and they could never exist in evolution.

Read again this passage Jeff:

18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Ephesians 4:18



.
Keith,

I am happy that you are so certain in your beliefs. I understand that you believe that those beliefs are facts. However, in the words of Porgy and Bess, "It ain't necessarily so..."

We have been down the road of of evolutionary discussions before. Consider all that I have said to be restated and I will assume the same for you. Science plays no role in your belief, a fact that seems to bother you much more than I understand. It plays a lot in my beliefs. However, as I have noted before, even if one accepts the science of all that has happened since the big bang, the big bang itself remains a question. Maybe God is the answer to that question and it was by his act that the big bang was started and by his plan that the universe appears to be billions of years old and that all life appears to have developed through evolution. By unraveling those mysteries we are simply admiring the miracle, not saying that no miracle happened. Personally, I do not believe that there is a God or that God had anything to do with the formation of the universe. It would be comfortable to attribute it all to a god, but we would still be left with the central question:


Who or what created God?

If it is inconceivable that all the miracles that surround us developed on their own, and that a God or divine intelligence is the only rational explanation, how can we then dodge answering the question on the origin of God. And whatever answer is given, why can't that same answer be used just as rationally to explain the universe without the intervention of a deity?

Keith Farmer
08-25-2010, 10:43 PM
Science plays no role in your belief


Apart from the biblical God science is not possible. By what standards, apart from the standards established by the biblical God, do predictable outcomes arise? Explain how random processes and chemical actions/reactions support systematic predictable knowledge...they do not.

Your assertion that science plays no role in my belief is not a rational statement...how do you know what role science plays in my belief?

Science (and by "science" I do not mean a belief system that presupposes, supports, and promotes evolution) is not, however, the ultimate authority in the Christian worldview...the bible is. Science is merely a tool that our Creator provided His creation with.

As for the rest of the stuff you stated it is just that...a bunch of "stuff"; you still have not answered my questions.

Here they are again:

In your worldview, a view by admission that is atheistic and evolutionary, how do you account for logic, for uniformity in nature, and where do you look for absolute morality in order to establish a standard of goodness?

Answer those questions Jeff and stop changing the subject...




.

depittydawg
08-25-2010, 11:16 PM
[QUOTE=Keith Farmer;666918]Apart from the biblical God science is not possible. By what standards, apart from the standards established by the biblical God, do predictable outcomes arise? Explain how random processes and chemical actions/reactions support systematic predictable knowledge...they do not.

Unless you can explain how God created the "predictable outcomes from random processes and chemical actions / reactions" of this universe it is not a valid question in your debate. Lack of a definitive answer is not a disclaimer to his belief system any more than it is a validation of yours. The fact is no one knows how it was done.
However, our body of knowledge includes both the physical and empirical evidence of random evolutionary development, and the anecdotal evidence of God. I suggest that both belief systems are true. Therefore a third system now exists that includes and validates both.

road kill
08-26-2010, 07:29 AM
Who or what created God?



Chuck Norris!!!:shock:

RK

YardleyLabs
08-26-2010, 07:32 AM
Apart from the biblical God science is not possible. By what standards, apart from the standards established by the biblical God, do predictable outcomes arise? Explain how random processes and chemical actions/reactions support systematic predictable knowledge...they do not.

Your assertion that science plays no role in my belief is not a rational statement...how do you know what role science plays in my belief?

Science (and by "science" I do not mean a belief system that presupposes, supports, and promotes evolution) is not, however, the ultimate authority in the Christian worldview...the bible is. Science is merely a tool that our Creator provided His creation with.

As for the rest of the stuff you stated it is just that...a bunch of "stuff"; you still have not answered my questions.

Here they are again:

In your worldview, a view by admission that is atheistic and evolutionary, how do you account for logic, for uniformity in nature, and where do you look for absolute morality in order to establish a standard of goodness?

Answer those questions Jeff and stop changing the subject...

.

Let's take these one at a time. You state, "Apart from the biblical God science is not possible. By what standards, apart from the standards established by the biblical God, do predictable outcomes arise? Explain how random processes and chemical actions/reactions support systematic predictable knowledge...they do not." This may be one of the clearer statements of the circularity of your reasoning. You assume that the underlying nature of all things is random. To the extent that they are not, you take that of evidence of intelligence. The standards for evaluating predictability of outcomes are the standards of experimentation and evidence. The standard for explaining observed patterns of behavior are hypotheses stated in a manner that can be tested. Repeated testing and the power of the resulting theoretical models in explaining relationships beyond their own limits, improves the measurable reliability of the hypotheses over time. To date, no scientific hypotheses have been limited or advanced by the incorporation of a hypothesis concerning the existence of a deity. Random processes are, in fact, almost entirely absent in the natural world. That, by itself, is one of the things that makes it difficult even to test hypotheses against a default assumption of randomness.

"Your assertion that science plays no role in my belief is not a rational statement...how do you know what role science plays in my belief?" The essence of scientific method is that you must be prepared to test every hypothesis (belief) in experiments that are deliberately biased against proof of relationships. You define all things as being determined by God and reason everything based on the presumption that your beliefs are fact. From a scientific perspective, you do not defend a hill by standing on it. Instead, you defend a hill by attacking in every way you can imagine using every resource you can muster. If the hill is solid, it will still be there when you are done. You asked, "Can you defend a hill in battle while standing on that hill?" From a scientific perspective the answer must always be "No!"

"Science (and by "science" I do not mean a belief system that presupposes, supports, and promotes evolution) is not, however, the ultimate authority in the Christian worldview...the bible is. Science is merely a tool that our Creator provided His creation with." I accept this as a statement of faith -- yours, not mine. Evolution is not a belief system. It started as a hypothesis. It has been attacked for more than a century by many people with all the resource they could muster, and is still standing as the most viable explanation for what is observed in the world around us. Your fundamental challenge is that is contradicts the Bible and cannot, therefore, be true. So be it. That is not a scientific argument, but one of faith. My only problem is when persons of faith seek to inhibit scientific exploration if they see the results as conflicting with faith. Our development over the last 1000+ years has depended repeatedly on pursuing scientific knowledge that was viewed as heretical at the time.

At this stage, I have no idea what questions you think I am avoiding. You have not addressed the one question that I asked: Who or what created God?

Keith Farmer
08-26-2010, 09:17 AM
You assume that the underlying nature of all things is random.


I do not assume that the underlying nature of things is random...that is what evolutionists assume and teach with regards to origins. Perhaps you should become more familiar with the belief system in which your faith rests.



The standards for evaluating predictability of outcomes are the standards of experimentation and evidence.


Again, in your worldview list for me how/where predictability arises. Predictability presupposes uniformity in nature. Evolution which promotes natural selection via random mutational changes and survival of the fittest does not claim to promote uniformity in nature.

Atheism does not promote uniformity in nature...so where do you get the idea that uniformity in nature exists Jeff?? You state it as a factual basis for your argument but your worldview does not teach you such...your worldview has no basis that gives you that understanding!!

We both understand predictability because the God of the bible has said these things:


Ecclesiastes 1:9 (New International Version)


9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.


&


Genesis 8:20-22 (New King James Version)


God’s Covenant with Creation


20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. 22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”




God is trustworty since there is no contradiction in Him:



Hebrews 13:8 (New International Version)

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.



2 Timothy 2:13 (New King James Version)

13 If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.


James 1:17 (New International Version)

17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.






Evolution is not a belief system.



Evolution most certainly is a belief system Jeff. There exists no proof whatsoever that evolution (and let's get the definition correct here...things changing from one kind of thing to another kind of thing like: a bananna changing to a killer whale; a single cell organism giving rise to every kind of lifeform we see around us today...that is the definition of evolution).

You accept what cannot be reproduced in a laboratory as fact and you do so on faith...blind faith.

I accept that God created everything just as He said He did in six literal days 6000 years ago on faith and scientific data supports that faith.



When you give an answer for where in an atheistic evolutionary worldview you learned about logic, uniformity in nature, and an absolute standard of morality I will answer your question...(and I do have a rational cogent answer Jeff).





.

Keith Farmer
08-26-2010, 09:19 AM
However, our body of knowledge includes both the physical and empirical evidence of random evolutionary development, and the anecdotal evidence of God. I suggest that both belief systems are true. Therefore a third system now exists that includes and validates both.


Proves my point Jeff...people understand evolution as a random process because that is what they were taught.








.

Keith Farmer
08-26-2010, 09:21 AM
I am leaving to go out of town. Should anyone respond I will not reply until perhaps Sunday afternoon...





.

troy schwab
08-26-2010, 09:39 AM
My head is starting to hurt...... do me a favor and take your day of rest.......LOL

dnf777
08-26-2010, 10:01 AM
I am leaving to go out of town. Should anyone respond I will not reply until perhaps Sunday afternoon...



.

Keith,
First, have a safe trip.

Second, we can pick this up on you return, but your ENTIRE argument relies on the Bible. If one does not believe the Bible to be infallable, then your arguments hold no water.

I believe in one divine God, who in his infinite power and wisdom, can present himself to others as he sees best. That may be in the form of a prophet son, Jesus Christ for some.....Mohammed for others, in the wind, the sky, and the stars for others. Perhaps, in very different terminology than you're used to---in the form of scientific discovery.

Why limit youself to only ONE version?

Gerry Clinchy
08-26-2010, 11:10 AM
<B>



Who or what created God?



If it is inconceivable that all the miracles that surround us developed on their own, and that a God or divine intelligence is the only rational explanation, how can we then dodge answering the question on the origin of God. And whatever answer is given, why can't that same answer be used just as rationally to explain the universe without the intervention of a deity?






Religion is based on "faith". If it could all be explained by the science available to us, then it would not have to be taken as "faith".



A person who believes in God will always have to come back to "faith". For one who does not believe in God, that basis will always be unacceptable.



So, a person who believes in God could never come up with an answer to Jeff's question that would be acceptable to Jeff.

Cody Covey
08-26-2010, 11:36 AM
Proves my point Jeff...people understand evolution as a random process because that is what they were taught.

Yes and in school you are taught the most basic version of evolution possible. Including high school. Its not until upper level biology classes that you really start to understand what evolution is and how it is not completely random that is just a small small portion.

YardleyLabs
08-26-2010, 11:37 AM
I do not assume that the underlying nature of things is random...that is what evolutionists assume and teach with regards to origins. Perhaps you should become more familiar with the belief system in which your faith rests.

This is a straw man argument in that very little about evolution is random. Mutations may or may not happen in a fully random way. However, the survival of mutations is not random. A mutation, for example, that produces infantile blindness or lameness is not likely to survive long enough to reproduce in a wild environment. The shaping of the process by the demands of survival and reproduction makes evolution anything but random.



Again, in your worldview list for me how/where predictability arises. Predictability presupposes uniformity in nature. Evolution which promotes natural selection via random mutational changes and survival of the fittest does not claim to promote uniformity in nature.

Atheism does not promote uniformity in nature...so where do you get the idea that uniformity in nature exists Jeff?? You state it as a factual basis for your argument but your worldview does not teach you such...your worldview has no basis that gives you that understanding!!
Actually, true uniformity does not exist outside of the world of math, and even there is it a little fuzzy. Predictability is always at least somewhat probabilistic as a result. Atheism, of course, promotes nothing in nature. Why would it. Theism doesn't promote anything in nature either. The rules of physical behavior are not made by man, although they may be observed by man and man may affect nature. You suggest that the rules of nature must come from God. My question would be "Why do they need to come from anywhere?" Maybe they simply are. For those uncomfortable with the notion of things that simply are, my question, as stated before, remains "Who or what created God?"



We both understand predictability because the God of the bible has said these things:
....[insert numerous Biblical quotes]...


Quotes from the Bible prove nothing except what is said in that version of the Bible.



Evolution most certainly is a belief system Jeff. There exists no proof whatsoever that evolution (and let's get the definition correct here...things changing from one kind of thing to another kind of thing like: a bananna changing to a killer whale; a single cell organism giving rise to every kind of lifeform we see around us today...that is the definition of evolution).

You accept what cannot be reproduced in a laboratory as fact and you do so on faith...blind faith.

Nothing in evolution has ever suggested or would even support the notion that a banana could change into a killer whale. Further, even if such a change occurred, all that would be seen in fossil evidence would be a fossil of a banana and a fossil of a whale, with nothing to link them. When does a giant block of marble become Michelangelo"s David? It happens one chip, one small piece of marble dust at a time. Evolution and genetic adaptation are one and the same. Enough changes over a long enough period of time and the original entity can no longer breed with the new one -- a fundamental basis for differentiating species. The simpler the organism and the shorter its lifespan, the easier it is to observe the process in action. Bacteria evolve continuously -- a reason why flu vaccines must be altered constantly. Genomic studies have made it easier to trace evolutionary changes by allowing us to isolate the actual genetic changes that exist between species and within species (with some entities reclassified on the basis f the results). Were all bacteria made at one time 6000 years ago? I don't think so.



I accept that God created everything just as He said He did in six literal days 6000 years ago on faith and scientific data supports that faith.



When you give an answer for where in an atheistic evolutionary worldview you learned about logic, uniformity in nature, and an absolute standard of morality I will answer your question...(and I do have a rational cogent answer Jeff).


Whether you accept it or not, I have. Still waiting for your answer in turn.

ducknwork
08-26-2010, 11:57 AM
Does anyone have an aspirin?

Throbbing headache regards,

Uncle Bill
08-26-2010, 12:09 PM
Religion is based on "faith". If it could all be explained by the science available to us, then it would not have to be taken as "faith".


A person who believes in God will always have to come back to "faith". For one who does not believe in God, that basis will always be unacceptable.


So, a person who believes in God could never come up with an answer to Jeff's question that would be acceptable to Jeff.






That sez it exactly. Wonder what the look on his face will be when the Rapture occurs?

UB

YardleyLabs
08-26-2010, 12:17 PM
<B>




Religion is based on "faith". If it could all be explained by the science available to us, then it would not have to be taken as "faith".
A person who believes in God will always have to come back to "faith". For one who does not believe in God, that basis will always be unacceptable.
So, a person who believes in God could never come up with an answer to Jeff's question that would be acceptable to Jeff.




Actually, Gerry, I agree with your statement completely.

Belief in God is a matter of faith. I have even stated that my lack of belief in God is a matter of faith.

Science doesn't answer all questions and the things not answered by science may in fact be where one finds the hand of a deity. My acceptance of both theism and atheism stems from my belief that these are matters for which no absolute answer is possible. Only Keith seems to have problems with accepting the notion that these are matters of faith. He wants desperately to have them be accepted as matters of absolute proven fact. My responses have only been attempts to show that you can't get there from here, not to suggest that atheism is actually right. I have no interest in "converts" when it comes to religion. I only wish other religions felt the same.

road kill
08-26-2010, 12:36 PM
Actually, Gerry, I agree with your statement completely.

Belief in God is a matter of faith. I have even stated that my lack of belief in God is a matter of faith.

Science doesn't answer all questions and the things not answered by science may in fact be where one finds the hand of a deity. My acceptance of both theism and atheism stems from my belief that these are matters for which no absolute answer is possible. Only Keith seems to have problems with accepting the notion that these are matters of faith. He wants desperately to have them be accepted as matters of absolute proven fact. My responses have only been attempts to show that you can't get there from here, not to suggest that atheism is actually right. I have no interest in "converts" when it comes to religion. I only wish other religions felt the same.

How does science explain a man's conscience??
How does science explain right & wrong?
How does science explain love?


RK

Franco
08-26-2010, 12:47 PM
For one to continue to believe Earth has only been around for 6,000 years has thier head buried in sand.

We have indisputable proof that Earth is approximetly 4.5 BILLION years old. Today, we have some of the tools that helps explain our origins, something ancient man had no access to. Ancient man could only comprehend gods for thier existence.

Homospaien has been on earth for some 35,000 years and it was some 25,000 years ago that the concept of gods first appeared on earth.

We also know that the universe is many billions of years older than Earth. As we probe deeper into the universe, more and more answers are being discovered about the age of the universe.

Sit and think for a moment how long a million years is. Then think about the length of time of several BILLION years! I think it is safe to say that the universe has always been here. That it wasn't created by any god and that the existence of the universe is the mystery.

Cody Covey
08-26-2010, 01:01 PM
How does science explain a man's conscience??
How does science explain right & wrong?
How does science explain love?


RK

Those all can be explained by the way man is a social being and those are all needed for survival. without a conscience and right and wrong man being as greedy as he is would've killed out the race long ago. So we evolved to be a semi pleasant being.

Roger Perry
08-26-2010, 01:47 PM
How does science explain a man's conscience??
How does science explain right & wrong?
How does science explain love?


RK

Perhaps you should watch NightlinePrime tonight and find out for yourself.

NightlinePrime -- Secrets of Your Mind: Why We Do What We Do (http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/nightlineprime-secrets-of-your-mind-why-we-do-what-we-do/EP01256190)

NEW
Examining the origin of evil or violent behavior;

road kill
08-26-2010, 05:55 PM
Those all can be explained by the way man is a social being and those are all needed for survival. without a conscience and right and wrong man being as greedy as he is would've killed out the race long ago. So we evolved to be a semi pleasant being.

SCIENCE!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V83JR2IoI8k&ob=av2e


RK:D

Captain Mike D
08-26-2010, 08:04 PM
Fear peddling is all they got!

Fear of brown people always seems to work best for them, hence all the anti-muslim propaganda. Can't wait for the Willie al-bin Horton ads to start running!

Dear Elitist DR.

You are a piece of work. How could one with so much supposed education be so ignorant

gman0046
08-26-2010, 08:22 PM
They don't call dnf little yardley for nothing.

Captain Mike D
08-26-2010, 08:54 PM
They don't call dnf little yardley for nothing.

Don't need any help in calling a bigot a bigot, but thanks for trying.

dnf777
08-26-2010, 09:38 PM
They don't call dnf little yardley for nothing.

Why don't you STFU if you don't have anything original to say? Your comments are really worthless. If you want to use my name, talk to be directly, little boy. Otherwise, quit hiding behind the others who actually have something to say.
The "they" you refer to has been RK, and you can't carry his jock strap, so until you can be half the man either he or I am, just butt out.

depittydawg
08-26-2010, 09:54 PM
Proves my point Jeff...people understand evolution as a random process because that is what they were taught.

.

Whether or not evolution is a random process is not the pertinent question. Evolution exists. The evidence is overwhelming. Whether you choose to believe it is random, or you choose to insert "God" into the equation is your choice. But it doesn't change the fact the everything, everywhere is in a state of flux in an ever evolving and changing universe.

Henry V
08-26-2010, 11:08 PM
Chuck Norris!!!:shock:

RK
I thought it was George Burns!

ducknwork
08-27-2010, 07:26 AM
Chuck Norris!!!:shock:

RK

You do know who created Chuck Norris, don't you?

Apparently, he traveled back in time and inseminated his own mother to conceive himself. Now THAT is one bad dude!:cool::p

Uncle Bill
08-27-2010, 09:58 AM
For one to continue to believe Earth has only been around for 6,000 years has thier head buried in sand.

We have indisputable proof that Earth is approximetly 4.5 BILLION years old. Today, we have some of the tools that helps explain our origins, something ancient man had no access to. Ancient man could only comprehend gods for thier existence.

Homospaien has been on earth for some 35,000 years and it was some 25,000 years ago that the concept of gods first appeared on earth.

We also know that the universe is many billions of years older than Earth. As we probe deeper into the universe, more and more answers are being discovered about the age of the universe.

Sit and think for a moment how long a million years is. Then think about the length of time of several BILLION years! I think it is safe to say that the universe has always been here. That it wasn't created by any god and that the existence of the universe is the mystery.


That, my dear Mr. Bootay, is so typical atheist BELIEF, you don't even need to repeat it. IT IS THE ATHEIST'S RELIGION. The huge majority of Christians know that, so most of us just don't bother to debate it. It's like changing a Muslim. Only Christ will be successful at that.

But as far as contending I have my head in the sand for what I believe, please consider this....if our God has the omnipotence to create the world and it's inhabitants, as we do believe, why would we not also believe He has the power to make it several million years old in the beginning? Ever consider He's tweaking you by giving you something that in your mind makes no sense?

An Atheist can never connect the dots written in scripture...they can only be connected by faith in Christ. Without that, you will be blinded to the entire Christian belief, and will only relate to what seems logical in the mind of a simple human.

As most Christians do, we continue to pray for the Holy Spirit to bring you the knowledge to see Christ as your savior. You have the God given free will to reject it, but that doesn't stop the Christian community from requesting God's help to save your soul. Even Saul was eventually brought to God's house, so that's why we still have hope for all atheists and agnostics.

UB

ducknwork
08-27-2010, 11:56 AM
But as far as contending I have my head in the sand for what I believe, please consider this....if our God has the omnipotence to create the world and it's inhabitants, as we do believe, why would we not also believe He has the power to make it several million years old in the beginning? Ever consider He's tweaking you by giving you something that in your mind makes no sense?


I have never thought about that...Pretty interesting idea there, UB...

Franco
08-27-2010, 01:42 PM
That, my dear Mr. Bootay, is so typical atheist BELIEF, you don't even need to repeat it. IT IS THE ATHEIST'S RELIGION. The huge majority of Christians know that, so most of us just don't bother to debate it. It's like changing a Muslim. Only Christ will be successful at that.

But as far as contending I have my head in the sand for what I believe, please consider this....if our God has the omnipotence to create the world and it's inhabitants, as we do believe, why would we not also believe He has the power to make it several million years old in the beginning? Ever consider He's tweaking you by giving you something that in your mind makes no sense?

An Atheist can never connect the dots written in scripture...they can only be connected by faith in Christ. Without that, you will be blinded to the entire Christian belief, and will only relate to what seems logical in the mind of a simple human.

As most Christians do, we continue to pray for the Holy Spirit to bring you the knowledge to see Christ as your savior. You have the God given free will to reject it, but that doesn't stop the Christian community from requesting God's help to save your soul. Even Saul was eventually brought to God's house, so that's why we still have hope for all atheists and agnostics.

UB


I much prefer the teachings of someone that makes sense.

Though written 600 years before the Christian's Christ, Buddha the Teacher, who is not consider a god by his followers gives us great lessons to live by.
Buddhism is the 4th most popular relgion in the world but in my estimate, the one closest to the truth.

Zen Buddhism lacks religious dogma and is long in spirituality. Whereas, I find both Christianity and Islam, long on dogma and short in spirituality.

Also, there is little to dispute in Buddhism. It is all based on real living whereas the New Testiment has many contridictions, myths and impossible situations.
http://www.zenguide.com/principles/eight_fold_path.cfm

Leddyman
08-28-2010, 09:16 PM
I much prefer the teachings of someone that makes sense.

Though written 600 years before the Christian's Christ, Buddha the Teacher, who is not consider a god by his followers gives us great lessons to live by.
Buddhism is the 4th most popular relgion in the world but in my estimate, the one closest to the truth.

Zen Buddhism lacks religious dogma and is long in spirituality. Whereas, I find both Christianity and Islam, long on dogma and short in spirituality.

Also, there is little to dispute in Buddhism. It is all based on real living whereas the New Testiment has many contridictions, myths and impossible situations.
http://www.zenguide.com/principles/eight_fold_path.cfm



Not surprising, everyone prefers the god they make up to the one that demands obedience.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 09:17 AM
Why limit youself to only ONE version?



First...thanks for your kind words about my safe travel.

Here is the answer to your question regarding why only "one version" of God (there are many more passages that declare the exclusivity of God...this is about as clear as it gets) (bold emphasis mine):

Isaiah 45:18-25 (New International Version)



18 For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other.
19 I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob's descendants,
'Seek me in vain.'
I, the LORD, speak the truth;
I declare what is right.
20 "Gather together and come;
assemble, you fugitives from the nations.
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood,
who pray to gods that cannot save.
21 Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD ?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.
22 "Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
24 They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.' "
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame. 25 But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel
will be found righteous and will exult.




.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 09:52 AM
In terms of circularity in arguing one must understand that eventually all arguments land on an ultimate authority and therefore, by absolute necessity, must be circular at that point. Even God swore by Himself when making a covenant oath since there is no higher authority...He is God and there is no other.

God has revealed Himself in Nature in a general way, in His written Word in a special way that is above and beyond natural revelation, and in a most personal way via Jesus the Christ who alone is the very icon of God...

The Supremacy of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


In God's revealed written Word, the bible, one has all instruction necessary for truth, morality, salvation, order, justice, etc, etc. Nowhere else is there found any of these foundational principles. Here is what the bible contains:


2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.



The ultimate authority in the Christian worldview is God as He is revealed in His written Word...the bible. In the Christian worldview there is no higher authority. Therefore, to accuse a Christian of circular arguing when a Christian argues for his worldview from the bible is no major problem since he is standing on the highest authority that exists...by what other authority could a Christian possibly turn to validate the claims of the highest authority in his worldview?

Atheistic evolutionists face the same dilemma...they must stand on an ultimate authority and argue for their worldview based on that authority. Atheistic evolutionists (and all other religious or secular worldviews which are non-Christian) have a different ultimate authority than the Christian...their's is not the bible.

In most cases the ultimate authority is science. Jeff, you are arguing for science using scientific data...that too is circular and you know it.

My assertion, and I defy anyone to prove me wrong, is that science is not possible based on an atheistic and an evolutionary worldview. Science is only possible because God has an order to His universe. Atheists, evolutionists, and all other non-Christian worldviews borrow from that order to be able argue against the bible and the God of the bible.

Jeff, you list math as the only place where true uniformity exists. Where in your atheistic/evolutionary worldview do you derive any form of logic? Math cannot exist without logic...where do you get logic in your worldview?...it does not exist in your worldview...it comes from the God of the bible and you borrow that standard to argue against Him. You and anyone else who stands in defiance against the God of the bible have to use His logic, His uniformity in nature, His absolute morality to even be able to craft an argument.

You have yet to tell me where in your worldview those attributes of God alone arise. I can tell you Jeff they do not exist in your worldview...you must obtain those standards from the God of the bible alone.








.














.

Leddyman
08-30-2010, 10:01 AM
Keith,

I am happy that you are so certain in your beliefs. I understand that you believe that those beliefs are facts. However, in the words of Porgy and Bess, "It ain't necessarily so..."

We have been down the road of of evolutionary discussions before. Consider all that I have said to be restated and I will assume the same for you. Science plays no role in your belief, a fact that seems to bother you much more than I understand. It plays a lot in my beliefs. However, as I have noted before, even if one accepts the science of all that has happened since the big bang, the big bang itself remains a question. Maybe God is the answer to that question and it was by his act that the big bang was started and by his plan that the universe appears to be billions of years old and that all life appears to have developed through evolution. By unraveling those mysteries we are simply admiring the miracle, not saying that no miracle happened. Personally, I do not believe that there is a God or that God had anything to do with the formation of the universe. It would be comfortable to attribute it all to a god, but we would still be left with the central question:


Who or what created God?

If it is inconceivable that all the miracles that surround us developed on their own, and that a God or divine intelligence is the only rational explanation, how can we then dodge answering the question on the origin of God. And whatever answer is given, why can't that same answer be used just as rationally to explain the universe without the intervention of a deity?


I can't believe I was on vacation last week and missed this! You actually hit on the question you can't answer Yardley. Hoist by your own petard so to speak. Indeed who created God?
I am sure that in your highly educated life you have studied the works of Einstein and Steven Hawking and their peers. They tell us by dint of their mathematical genius that there was a state in which the universe did not exist. Notice I say state not time, because matter is required for time to exist and there was no matter. Now I am not making this up you can go read Hawking's book "A brief History of the Universe: From the Big Bang to the Black Hole" In it you will find a lenghty but understandable explanation of what existed before the big bang, which was nothing. No space, no matter, no time. Not a vacuum in space, but literally the absence of existence.
Suddenly BANG the universe came into being. From an infinitessimally small point all things that we see exploded into existence. As science observes the universe we find that universally nothing happens that is not caused. It is one of the laws of thermodynamics. We find cause after cause for all things until we get to the big bang, which in my opinion closely resembles a creation event. Here the chain of causality is broken. We find no cause.

At this point we are faced with 2 options. The universe created itself, or a being which has existence as an attribute created the universe. That being BTW being God. God has existence as an attribute meaning, that in some way which we can not completely comprehend, He has always existed. He was not created, he simply exists. Which is why when Moses asks Him who shall I say sent me? in exodus, God's answer is tell them I AM sent you. (being as an attribute) When I say as an attribute what I mean is as an inherent characteristic of the existence of a thing; take away that characteristic and it becomes something else. Granite has hardness as an attribute.

So in order to decide between these 2 options we must look at the evidence. I present to you exhibit A: The universe. We observe and report through the 2nd law of theromdynamics that the universe runs to entropy. That is that things proceed from a state of order to a state of disorder otherwise called entropy. We observe in the universe a high degree of order. This order is maintained by the strong and weak atomic force, the gravitational force, and the electromagnetic force. Each of these forces have precise values which are attuned to permit the existence of life on earth. There is no reason why they couldn't have sprung into being with different values, but they didn't. They have exactly the precise values we need to survive. So, the laws of the universe would dictate chaos unless acted on by some outside force, I posit that there is such an outside force, namely God who has brought the universe into existence and ordered it so that we live and have being. I get from your statements that you prefer option 2: The universe created itself from nothing and by accident got all of the forces right along with the original velocity of expansion from the explosion.
I say that option 2 takes the greater amount of faith.

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 10:08 AM
In terms of circularity in arguing one must understand that eventually all arguments land on an ultimate authority and therefore, by absolute necessity, must be circular at that point. Even God swore by Himself when making a covenant oath since there is no higher authority...He is God and there is no other.

God has revealed Himself in Nature in a general way, in His written Word in a special way that is above and beyond natural revelation, and in a most personal way via Jesus the Christ who alone is the very icon of God...

The Supremacy of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


In God's revealed written Word, the bible, one has all instruction necessary for truth, morality, salvation, order, justice, etc, etc. Nowhere else is there found any of these foundational principles. Here is what the bible contains:


2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.



The ultimate authority in the Christian worldview is God as He is revealed in His written Word...the bible. In the Christian worldview there is no higher authority. Therefore, to accuse a Christian of circular arguing when a Christian argues for his worldview from the bible is no major problem since he is standing on the highest authority that exists...by what other authority could a Christian possibly turn to validate the claims of the highest authority in his worldview?

Atheistic evolutionists face the same dilemma...they must stand on an ultimate authority and argue for their worldview based on that authority. Atheistic evolutionists (and all other religious or secular worldviews which are non-Christian) have a different ultimate authority than the Christian...their's is not the bible.

In most cases the ultimate authority is science. Jeff, you are arguing for science using scientific data...that too is circular and you know it.

My assertion, and I defy anyone to prove me wrong, is that science is not possible based on an atheistic and an evolutionary worldview. Science is only possible because God has an order to His universe. Atheists, evolutionists, and all other non-Christian worldviews borrow from that order to be able argue against the bible and the God of the bible.

Jeff, you list math as the only place where true uniformity exists. Where in your atheistic/evolutionary worldview do you derive any form of logic? Math cannot exist without logic...where do you get logic in your worldview?...it does not exist in your worldview...it comes from the God of the bible and you borrow that standard to argue against Him. You and anyone else who stands in defiance against the God of the bible have to use His logic, His uniformity in nature, His absolute morality to even be able to craft an argument.

You have yet to tell me where in your worldview those attributes of God alone arise. I can tell you Jeff they do not exist in your worldview...you must obtain those standards from the God of the bible alone.

.
Keith,

The issue of circularity in your arguments is that you define the truth as that which is written in the Bible and your proof of its truth is that tells you it is true. If you then stated that your arguments are, therefore, predicated on the faith you have that the Bible is the word of God, I would have no reason to argue. An act of faith is ultimately a decision to believe without respect to concrete evidence. However, you always take the next step of insisting that all that is said in the Bible be accepted as fact, not faith. Further, you argue that I and anyone else not believing your facts must therefore be swimming in a world without logic or structure since those are things that can exist only by virtue of God. I understand a statement of faith, but find your efforts to argue based on "reason" and "evidence" to be incredible since they are at variance with all that I think and all that I see. I see, as a relatively well educated and experienced person, a world that is full of reason and full of structure, a world where what is observed may be explained without relying on any assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence of a deity. I see moral people living their lives despite the fact that almost none of them would accept your notions of God and many do not believe in any god at all. In the logic of that world, yours seems small and lacking.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 10:18 AM
Thanks Terry...you saved me the time to explain what you have done in such precise fashion.

God has as an attribute what is known as aseity. He alone has necessary being. Aside and apart from God NOTHING could possibly exist.

In terms of self-creation (as evolutionists are ultimately faced with) that is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. A cannot be A and non-A at the same time in the same relationship.

If ever there were a time when NOTHING existed...what could possibly exist now? This is the problem with infinite regression. Sagan would not go there and Hawking et al have no valid answers regarding origins.

God is the "First Cause" allowing the Law of Causality to be possible...which scientists use to perfrom science (preciseley my point all along).





.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 10:32 AM
The issue of circularity in your arguments is that you define the truth as that which is written in the Bible and your proof of its truth is that tells you it is true.


Jeff,

You have been defining truth based on science and then you use science to validate the truth claims you presuppose...that too is circular.

God has revealed Himself in three ways: nature, His written Word (the bible), and Jesus the Christ. That is a multi-faceted approach to substantiating His truth.



I see, as a relatively well educated and experienced person, a world that is full of reason and full of structure, a world where what is observed may be explained without relying on any assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence of a deity. I see moral people living their lives despite the fact that almost none of them would accept your notions of God and many do not believe in any god at all. In the logic of that world, yours seems small and lacking.




First of all Jeff, God says that man's wisdom, which you seem to be so proud of, is foolishness:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 1 Corinthians 3:19

Second, you just shifted on me Jeff. You just changed from science as your standard of truth and reliability to your own intellect...YOU...as your ultimate standard of authority. That demonstrates a huge inconsistency Jeff. You must see that you don't know who you believe as being the ultimate authority in your life Jeff.

Third, since you have now put yourself in a sovereign position in your worldview, from where in your worldview do you get the idea that your senses are reliable? Logic, uniformity, and absolute morality do not exist in atheism or evolutionism...so how do you know that your senses are reliable Jeff? The only place where you can possibly learn about the partial reliability of your senses Jeff is from the biblical God alone...and science validates that reliablity Jeff because God has ordained it to be so.



.

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 10:43 AM
I can't believe I was on vacation last week and missed this! You actually hit on the question you can't answer Yardley. Hoist by your own petard so to speak. Indeed who created God?
I am sure that in your highly educated life you have studied the works of Einstein and Steven Hawking and their peers. They tell us by dint of their mathematical genius that there was a state in which the universe did not exist. Notice I say state not time, because matter is required for time to exist and there was no matter. Now I am not making this up you can go read Hawking's book "A brief History of the Universe: From the Big Bang to the Black Hole" In it you will find a lenghty but understandable explanation of what existed before the big bang, which was nothing. No space, no matter, no time. Not a vacuum in space, but literally the absence of existence.
Suddenly BANG the universe came into being. From an infinitessimally small point all things that we see exploded into existence. As science observes the universe we find that universally nothing happens that is not caused. It is one of the laws of thermodynamics. We find cause after cause for all things until we get to the big bang, which in my opinion closely resembles a creation event. Here the chain of causality is broken. We find no cause.

At this point we are faced with 2 options. The universe created itself, or a being which has existence as an attribute created the universe. That being BTW being God. God has existence as an attribute meaning, that in some way which we can not completely comprehend, He has always existed. He was not created, he simply exists. Which is why when Moses asks Him who shall I say sent me? in exodus, God's answer is tell them I AM sent you. (being as an attribute) When I say as an attribute what I mean is as an inherent characteristic of the existence of a thing; take away that characteristic and it becomes something else. Granite has hardness as an attribute.

So in order to decide between these 2 options we must look at the evidence. I present to you exhibit A: The universe. We observe and report through the 2nd law of theromdynamics that the universe runs to entropy. That is that things proceed from a state of order to a state of disorder otherwise called entropy. We observe in the universe a high degree of order. This order is maintained by the strong and weak atomic force, the gravitational force, and the electromagnetic force. Each of these forces have precise values which are attuned to permit the existence of life on earth. There is no reason why they couldn't have sprung into being with different values, but they didn't. They have exactly the precise values we need to survive. So, the laws of the universe would dictate chaos unless acted on by some outside force, I posit that there is such an outside force, namely God who has brought the universe into existence and ordered it so that we live and have being. I get from your statements that you prefer option 2: The universe created itself from nothing and by accident got all of the forces right along with the original velocity of expansion from the explosion.
I say that option 2 takes the greater amount of faith.
The logic of a universe creating itself is no more of a stretch than the notion of an intelligent entity that has always "existed" and did not, therefore, need to be created. In fact, the latter falls more into the category of deciding that anything I don't understand must be magic. Personally, I am perfectly happy to accept that there are things that we do not understand now and may not understand at any point in my lifetime. I suspect that when humans ultimately find ways to develop and test theories for what existed before the big bang that they will discover that the universe as we know it is part of a broader cycle of activity.

The "fact" that the universe has produced "exactly the precise values we need to survive" falls into the chicken/egg category. If you consider the purpose of all existence as having been the production of you as a person, the odds of success are so microscopic that your existence has the appearance of a miracle. In fact, the things that develop in an environment are the things that can develop. The fact that you were created is simply a coincidence based on all that happened along the way. The fact that humans exist and can survive in the environment of the world is a similar coincidence. The things that happened, happened. The things that survived, survived. Up until now, we are among the survivors. All thing considered, crocodiles, mosquitoes, and cockroaches have been more successful since they also still survive and have been here much longer than people.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 11:48 AM
The logic of a universe creating itself is no more of a stretch than the notion of an intelligent entity that has always "existed" and did not, therefore, need to be created. In fact, the latter falls more into the category of deciding that anything I don't understand must be magic. Personally, I am perfectly happy to accept that there are things that we do not understand now and may not understand at any point in my lifetime.



Let's try this again Jeff.

You just made a statement that started with logic. Then you proceed to induce a contradiction, something creating itself, and you say that is acceptible to you. That demonstrates the fallacious nonsense in your argumentation perfectly.

You have just tried to use God's laws of logic to substantiate a contradictory ideology (self-creation), which is an impossibility.

Philosophically speaking self-existence is not a contradiction and perfectly acceptible...self-creation is a contradiction, it is impossible, and it is nonsense.




In fact, the latter falls more into the category of deciding that anything I don't understand must be magic.


That is an arbitrary statement Jeff...therefore it is also fallacious and not admissible as a sound argument.

Both Terry and I have proven that without the existence of God NOTHING at all could possibly exist. Further, even secular philosophers throughout the ages have agreed with this fact...

Paul quoted secular philosophers Epimenides and Aratus when he addressed the supreme court at Athens:

Acts 17:28 (New International Version)

28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'


Philosophers and sceintists today will not agree with you Jeff that contradictions are possible...you are alone in that nonsense.





Personally, I am perfectly happy to accept that there are things that we do not understand now and may not understand at any point in my lifetime.



What you are describing are mysteries Jeff...but what does that statement have to do with how you learned about logic, uniformity, and absolute morality from atheism and/or evolutionism? You are just being arbitrary again...


In fact, the things that develop in an environment are the things that can develop.


I am not so sure I agree with your assessment because you have just stated a reductio ad absurdum. However, if that were true to some extent, once again, you could only make such an assertion because there is uniformity in nature. However, your statement is not true since God is not limited to natural laws (although He generally operates in such fashion for our benefit)...He can and does perform miracles outside of His created order of things.


Further, what you stated is an absolute Jeff. By your own admission Jeff you do not believe in absolutes...you are a relativist remember? Here again you borrow from God's standards for absolute truth (which you deny) to make an absolute statement to support a nonsense argument for a contradiction...man-o-man!!


.


.



.

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 12:59 PM
In his 1952 essay "Is There a God?" the philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote:

"I will not attempt to set forth in all their subtlety the philosophical arguments for the existence of God. There is, I think, only one of them which still has weight with philosophers, that is the argument of the First Cause. This argument maintains that, since everything that happens has a cause, there must be a First Cause from which the whole series starts. The argument suffers, however, from the same defect as that of the elephant and the tortoise. It is said (I do not know with what truth) that a certain Hindu thinker believed the earth to rest upon an elephant. When asked what the elephant rested upon, he replied that it rested upon a tortoise. When asked what the tortoise rested upon, he said, "I am tired of this. Suppose we change the subject.""
You are guilty of the same logic (or lack thereof). You argue that it is illogical to think of the universe as having no beginning or of being self creating. However, you argue that it is logical to believe in a deity with the same characteristics. Either both are logical or neither is. You argue that I cannot even use logic in support of a non-theistic position because logic only exists because of God and God is only bound by logic to the extent that he so chooses. That is clearly faith, not logic speaking.

The reality, as I stated before, is that based on the current state of science there can be no proof of the existence or non-existence of a deity. As a matter of faith, you believe that a deity exists. As a matter of faith, I do not.

By your belief, you hold that only what you believe is true and that all else is therefore in error. My beliefs are more modest. Not only do I believe that I could be wrong, I also don't believe that the truth is even very important. No god capable of creating the diversity of existence that we see and have yet to see in the universe is capable of being so narrow minded as to have done so solely to be worshiped in a particular manner by some of those created while the rest are condemned for having failed the test.

You keep coming back to the assumption that there must be some form of absolute truth. You argue that as an atheist I cannot believe is such an absolute truth and therefore must live in a world with no logic since logic demands the uniformity that only exists with absolutes. I think that convoluted sentence captures the notion you presented. However, it is complete hogwash.

The notion of absolute truth is itself anti-scientific. Our understanding of truth improves (sometimes in a non-linear fashion) through the collection and analysis of evidence and the refinement of our theories over time. Only in religion is the notion of truth immutable and absolute. Such a frozen approach is only possible when thought is frozen as well. One need only look at the history of religion to see that all those notions of truth have either changed over time to accommodate changes in our understanding of the physical universe, or they have denied the existence of those changes. As early as the 4th century, St. Augustine, in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, had already argued that the Bible must be read in a metaphorical, not a literal manner, and that its underlying truths were not altered by variations between the observable reality of the physical world and the specifics of what is stated in the Bible. I wonder why, 1800 years later, we find ourselves still arguing about such issues.

dnf777
08-30-2010, 01:21 PM
Both Terry and I have proven that without the existence of God NOTHING at all could possibly exist. Further, even secular philosophers throughout the ages have agreed with this fact...

.

Keith, You have proven NOTHING with that total lack of a coherent argument. The fact that you think you need to PROVE the existence of God makes me question your FAITH in God.

I believe in a creator of the universe. That's all I need to say. Nobody can, or needs to argue with that. If someone says God is a white male with long hair, so be it. If somone says he's an asian dude who sits Indian style and makes funny hand gestures, so be it. I don't care. Why can't people just believe in the God that speaks to them, or not, and leave everyone else alone? Who cares if Jeff believes in some other explanation of the universe?
I can feel the earth, see fossils, look at the stars, and believe what I want about the creator. So can you. I don't tell you that YOU'RE wrong, please don't tell us that we're wrong. And if you do, try to use some logic besides "'cause the Bible says so....".

Franco
08-30-2010, 01:31 PM
Not only have Keith and Terry proved nothing with thier shallow agruement, thye continue to rely on faulty docuents written by mortal man long after the Rabbi Jesus was gone!

In regards to the origins of the universe; the universe has no beginning, it has always been here! Again, Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Universe is many billions of years older than Earth.

The universe has no beginning as it has always been here!

dnf777
08-30-2010, 01:37 PM
In regards to the origins of the universe; the universe has no beginning, it has always been here! Again, Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Universe is many billions of years older than Earth.

The universe has no beginning as it has always been here!


Hey, after a few billion years....who's counting? ;)

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 02:12 PM
However, you argue that it is logical to believe in a deity with the same characteristics.


Jeff...that is a strawman. I, nor any other Christian, have ever asserted that God created Himself. You made that assertion.

What God has said of Himself is that He is eternal. He is beyond time. He is Alpha and Omega. He is beginning and ending. He said, as Terry said, that "I Am". He is not what you think, He is not what you feel, He is not subject to you at all...He is God.

If you are going to argue with me then do so in a truthful manner and argue against what I actually say or promote instead of establishing strawmen and arguing against those.

In terms of you accepting a contradiction that is absurd. If you a accept contradiction as possible then anything is possible. Logic (which gives foundation to math and science) is out the window. Order in the universe is out the window. Morality becomes relative..."whatever suites me and my survival is up to me and you have nothing to say about it". If you accept a contradiction Jeff then there is no way we can know anything about anything...it is absurd.

If you want to argue rationally then I will do so. I will not...cannot...argue with absurdity.



You keep coming back to the assumption that there must be some form of absolute truth. You argue that as an atheist I cannot believe is such an absolute truth and therefore must live in a world with no logic since logic demands the uniformity that only exists with absolutes. I think that convoluted sentence captures the notion you presented. However, it is complete hogwash.



You just made another absolute statement Jeff..."it is complete hogwash." If you don't believe in absolutes then how can you make such an absolute statement? When will you stop using God's standards to argue against His standards?




By your belief, you hold that only what you believe is true and that all else is therefore in error.


Jeff, I don't know how many times I can state this: My beliefs nor your beliefs will or can change the laws of logic, uniformity in nature, or absolute morality. Whether you or I believe in them they exist. If you don't think so go jump out of an airplane without a safety device...I can assure you that the laws of gravity will not change arbitrarily depending on whether you believe in God or not and that you WILL fall to the earth.



The notion of absolute truth is itself anti-scientific.

Then science is impossible. Scientists must rely on logic, math, and uniformity in order to do what they do...otherwise they could not make sense of anything.

That is about as uninformed a statement as you have ever made. Your argumentation is getting more and more absurd as you try and defend the nonsense you are espousing.


.


.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 02:17 PM
Keith, You have proven NOTHING with that total lack of a coherent argument. The fact that you think you need to PROVE the existence of God makes me question your FAITH in God.



I have absolutely proven that without the God of the bible then NOTHING could possibly exist and that we could not know anything. Nowhere else, in any other worldview, will you learn about logic, uniformity in nature, and absolute morality.

God exists, therefore everything else can exist (by the way THAT is logical)...God has given us His standards of logic, uniformity, and morality, therefore, we can know what we know.

In terms of faith let me say this...God has never demanded that His people accept Him on a blind faith (as does evolutionism which has no proof of its claims). God repeatedly accepted challenges to prove Himself. In fact, here is a great story from the bible that demonstrates that God loves to prove Himself (note Elijah's taunting of the false prophets in bold...my emphasis):

Elijah on Mount Carmel

16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 When he saw Elijah, he said to him, "Is that you, you troubler of Israel?"

18 "I have not made trouble for Israel," Elijah replied. "But you and your father's family have. You have abandoned the LORD's commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table."
20 So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."
But the people said nothing.
22 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God."
Then all the people said, "What you say is good."
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire." 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come here to me." They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Your name shall be Israel." 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs [a (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#fen-NIV-9374a)] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, "Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood."
34 "Do it again," he said, and they did it again.
"Do it a third time," he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"
40 Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
41 And Elijah said to Ahab, "Go, eat and drink, for there is the sound of a heavy rain." 42 So Ahab went off to eat and drink, but Elijah climbed to the top of Carmel, bent down to the ground and put his face between his knees.
43 "Go and look toward the sea," he told his servant. And he went up and looked.
"There is nothing there," he said.
Seven times Elijah said, "Go back."
44 The seventh time the servant reported, "A cloud as small as a man's hand is rising from the sea."
So Elijah said, "Go and tell Ahab, 'Hitch up your chariot and go down before the rain stops you.' " 45 Meanwhile, the sky grew black with clouds, the wind rose, a heavy rain came on and Ahab rode off to Jezreel. 46 The power of the LORD came upon Elijah and, tucking his cloak into his belt, he ran ahead of Ahab all the way to Jezreel.




.

dnf777
08-30-2010, 02:34 PM
I have absolutely proven that without the God of the bible then NOTHING could possibly exist and that we could not know anything. Nowhere else, in any other worldview, will you learn about logic, uniformity in nature, and absolute morality.
.

What if Elijah was never on Mt. Carmel? How do you know he was? Citing scripture (ie the written works of MAN) proves nothing. Every religion has its scriptures and prophets. Everyone thinks theirs is the only true one. Very profitable attitude for bomb-makers and defense industries, I'd say.

You have risen to a new level of absurdity! Once again, you have proven NOTHING. Just because you say something, does not prove it.

Much of mathematics, biology, physics, astronomy, and countless other scientific pursuits came to light not because of religion, but rather in spite of religions numerous attempts throughout history to suppress scientific advances!
The more we know about our natural world, the less we leave up to divinity, and the less power the Church wielded over the population.

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 02:36 PM
...



The notion of absolute truth is itself anti-scientific. Then science is impossible. Scientists must rely on logic, math, and uniformity in order to do what they do...otherwise they could not make sense of anything.

That is about as uninformed a statement as you have ever made. Your argumentation is getting more and more absurd as you try and defend the nonsense you are espousing.


.


.
Sorry to bring in a source like Wikipedia, but it provides a relatively clear explanation on scientific method (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_technique) for investigating phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon), acquiring new knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge), or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-0) To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry) must be based on gathering observable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable), empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement) evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) subject to specific principles of reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1) A scientific method consists of the collection of data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data) through observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment), and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-2)

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_science) to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research) to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28science%29) to reduce biased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias) interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving) and share (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing_%28Science%29) all data and methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology) so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28statistics%29) of these data to be established.


...


Certainty and myth

Like an informal mathematical proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_mathematics), a scientific theory is empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical), and remains subject to falsification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty). Theories very rarely result in vast changes in our understanding. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science; it is more like a climb than a leap.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-25) Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and verified, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.


In contrast, a myth enjoys uncritical belief. Imre Lakatos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos) has noted that once a narrative is constructed it becomes easier to believe (this is called the narrative fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy)).[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-26) The difference between a theory and a myth is the difference between doubt and uncritical acceptance. That is, theories are accepted by a scientific community after evidence for the theory is presented, and obvious fallacies are falsified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsification).
...

I enlarged the bold type in the final paragraph for your benefit.

Cody Covey
08-30-2010, 02:38 PM
Jeff...that is a strawman. I, nor any other Christian, have ever asserted that God created Himself. You made that assertion.

What God has said of Himself is that He is eternal. He is beyond time. He is Alpha and Omega. He is beginning and ending. He said, as Terry said, that "I Am". He is not what you think, He is not what you feel, He is not subject to you at all...He is God.

If you are going to argue with me then do so in a truthful manner and argue against what I actually say or promote instead of establishing strawmen and arguing against those.

In terms of you accepting a contradiction that is absurd. If you a accept contradiction as possible then anything is possible. Logic (which gives foundation to math and science) is out the window. Order in the universe is out the window. Morality becomes relative..."whatever suites me and my survival is up to me and you have nothing to say about it". If you accept a contradiction Jeff then there is no way we can know anything about anything...it is absurd.

If you want to argue rationally then I will do so. I will not...cannot...argue with absurdity.





You just made another absolute statement Jeff..."it is complete hogwash." If you don't believe in absolutes then how can you make such an absolute statement? When will you stop using God's standards to argue against His standards?




Jeff, I don't know how many times I can state this: My beliefs nor your beliefs will or can change the laws of logic, uniformity in nature, or absolute morality. Whether you or I believe in them they exist. If you don't think so go jump out of an airplane without a safety device...I can assure you that the laws of gravity will not change arbitrarily depending on whether you believe in God or not and that you WILL fall to the earth.




Then science is impossible. Scientists must rely on logic, math, and uniformity in order to do what they do...otherwise they could not make sense of anything.

That is about as uninformed a statement as you have ever made. Your argumentation is getting more and more absurd as you try and defend the nonsense you are espousing.


.


.Ever notice that everything in Science is a theory. Nothing is absolute because new information can come along as we get more advance and disprove a theory outright or change the theory. Gravity used to be thought as pulling towards the center of the mass of an object while now it is know that gravity is actually a pushing force. You will find many more examples that coincide with Jeff's statement that Science is not absolute.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 02:43 PM
Ever notice that everything in Science is a theory.



No

FYI...(and this from Wikipedia; easily accessible)

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Inquiry) must be based on gathering observable (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Observable), empirical (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Measurement) evidence (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Evidence) subject to specific principles of reasoning (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Reasoning).

Funny that I sourced the same thing you did Jeff...problem is how did you miss the fact that science depends on measurable evidence and principles of reason (which stem from logic, which does not exist in your random, contradictory, inconsistent worldview).

I fully agree that science is useful. But science uses formal truths in order to be possible. If anything goes Jeff then science is not possible because logic is not possible...but I am being redundant.

Thanks for further proving my point...




.


.

Cody Covey
08-30-2010, 02:53 PM
No

FYI...(and this from Wikipedia; easily accessible)

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Inquiry) must be based on gathering observable (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Observable), empirical (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Measurement) evidence (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Evidence) subject to specific principles of reasoning (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Reasoning).

Funny that I sourced the same thing you did Jeff...problem is how did you miss the fact that science depends on measurable evidence and principles of reason (which stem from logic, which does not exist in your random, contradictory, inconsistent worldview).

I fully agree that science is useful. But science uses formal truths in order to be possible. If anything goes Jeff then science is not possible because logic is not possible...but I am being redundant.

Thanks for further proving my point...




.


.
yes it does use all of those things but does not state that outcomes are absolutes~

david gibson
08-30-2010, 02:56 PM
Ever notice that everything in Science is a theory. Nothing is absolute because new information can come along as we get more advance and disprove a theory outright or change the theory. Gravity used to be thought as pulling towards the center of the mass of an object while now it is know that gravity is actually a pushing force. You will find many more examples that coincide with Jeff's statement that Science is not absolute.

that is wholly absurd. gravity as a pushing force is only "pushed" by a few, it is far from widely accepted, so therefore to say we "know" it is a pushing force is a huge stretch. poppycock and rubbish to be quite frank.

scientists are the first to admit that science is not absolute. but we are getting closer every day. if it didnt sufficiently explain its actions and interactions of the world around us then we wouldnt have put man on the moon, wouldnt have safe food storage, and wouldnt be corresponding on the internet now, would we?


religion didnt create a fighter jet, a polio vaccine, or explain photosynthesis. and religion wont cure cancer (except on tv shows hosted by rich defrauding false preachers). religion does nothing but unite men of similar beliefs and divide those of different beliefs. however science is universal, men of all nations can work together to advance civilization, thats how we got where we are today. american scientists and chinese scientists use the same math, work hard to refine and advance the same math, that then leads to the technological advances we all see - be they peaceful or otherwise.

you guys find one little issue here and one there and try to claim science is bunk. no god created the car you drive and no god figured out how to get oil from miles deep in the ground and refine it to an efficient combustible material to power your car. it took science to understand the science that created the oil.



science wins, hands down. they are mutually exclusive.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 02:59 PM
yes it does use all of those things but does not state that outcomes are absolutes


Then why base one's worldview on scientific data?

That is precisely the point I have been making all along...and I am glad someone is finally coming around to see the fallacy of standing on empirical scientific data for their ultimate authority when science changes all the time.

The ultimate authority on which science stands in order to be possible is the God of the bible. This simple truth should cause each of you who disregard Him to stop and reflect on just where you are standing.

Science is imperfect. All non-Christian worldviews are irrational (and can be proven as such)...so why run FROM God to something that is less than perfect and fallible?


SIN is the only answer.


.

Cody Covey
08-30-2010, 03:02 PM
all the quick research that i have done says since Einstein it is known that Gravity is a pushing force. Can you link to something that says its not? (not looking to start an argument just genuinely curious)

david gibson
08-30-2010, 03:33 PM
all the quick research that i have done says since Einstein it is known that Gravity is a pushing force. Can you link to something that says its not? (not looking to start an argument just genuinely curious)

some think of it as a pushing force, but that is just a semantical difference in perspective. this is a write up that does a decent job:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
"Gravity is the attraction of mass to other mass. It is a "pull" rather than a "push" in that light.
Not really. This is a 17th century Newtonian way of looking at Gravity. A
According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is a push. The space around an object is malleable and is warped by that object. So in Earth's case the Space is pushing us back down to earth.
There are many arguments for both pull and push when it comes to gravity, a search of the internet will lead you to many arguments for both push and pull
I disagree with the above Gravity is still a PULL rather than a PUSH Anyone else care to add ?
No it is a pushing effect. Think of earth as being immersed in pool of dark matter, which could also be described as Einstein's Space-time stuff, it is pressure of that displacement on neutral particles in your body and other everyday stuff that results in the downward force. An interesting fact that proves this is that as soon as you go underground you become slightly lighter. Another fact is that when you go into space just outside of the atmosphere you become weightless within a relatively short distance. If it was a pulling force you would loose weight at the inverse square law and it does not happen that way. Also if you consider the Moon as shielding us from gravity rather than pulling us, it would create the same effect.


Now, while the above is a very good example of the theoretical background of the advancement of gravity discussions, it's mostly useless to someone wanting applicable knowledge about gravity.
With this said, gravity is BOTH a push and a pull. Think about a horse and carriage. To the observer, the horse is pulling the carriage. To the horse, however, it feels as though it's pushing on the chest brace to move the carriage. Even in engineering calculations using vector forces, the difference between push and pull doesn't matter much when doing calculations with particle physics."

>>>>>>>>>>>

so technically, you may be correct in a sense. the main issue however is no matter how you slice it, whether it is a push or a pupp makes zero difference on the math that is used to define and predict it, and in college (well after einsteins day) my physics profs saw no reason to teach it as a pull since it is not "proven" either. so to say "pull" is proven to be wrong is not even close to accurate.

einstiens ideas about "warped" space help explain some things, but his entire work is also based on particle physics. there is a lot of growing work on string theory etc. does that mean any of it is wrong?

absolutely not.

you can say that is proof that god created it and therefore we cant explain it. have at it. like i said, religion doesnt cure cancer except on TV.

Franco
08-30-2010, 03:37 PM
Thank you Thomas Jefferson for having the wisdom to not appoint an official state religion for we would be no different than Iran! A nation of religious nuts thinking they know the truth.

What just god would exclude 99% of the world's population? We have one person here that believes that his sect of Christianity is the only truth. That the rest of the Christians and the rest of the world have it wrong. That if you don't believe in what he does that you are damned. I think he would fit in well in some Theocracy but never where free men live!

Mankind will never move forward while he is blindfolded by myth!

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 03:57 PM
Then why base one's worldview on scientific data?

That is precisely the point I have been making all along...and I am glad someone is finally coming around to see the fallacy of standing on empirical scientific data for their ultimate authority when science changes all the time.

The ultimate authority on which science stands in order to be possible is the God of the bible. This simple truth should cause each of you who disregard Him to stop and reflect on just where you are standing.

Science is imperfect. All non-Christian worldviews are irrational (and can be proven as such)...so why run FROM God to something that is less than perfect and fallible?


SIN is the only answer.


.
It is not a weakness that science is changing over time, but a strength. Our understanding of the world and the universe in which we live is changing also, one step at a time (You might even say it is evolving :D You repeatedly state that without absolutes there can be no logic. That in itself is an illogical conclusion, not supported by evidence or reason. There is a big gap between asserting that all things are random and asserting that all things are absolute. You are suggesting the latter. I am suggesting neither.

dnf777
08-30-2010, 03:59 PM
that is wholly absurd. gravity as a pushing force is only "pushed" by a few, it is far from widely accepted, so therefore to say we "know" it is a pushing force is a huge stretch. poppycock and rubbish to be quite frank.

scientists are the first to admit that science is not absolute. but we are getting closer every day. if it didnt sufficiently explain its actions and interactions of the world around us then we wouldnt have put man on the moon, wouldnt have safe food storage, and wouldnt be corresponding on the internet now, would we?


religion didnt create a fighter jet, a polio vaccine, or explain photosynthesis. and religion wont cure cancer (except on tv shows hosted by rich defrauding false preachers). religion does nothing but unite men of similar beliefs and divide those of different beliefs. however science is universal, men of all nations can work together to advance civilization, thats how we got where we are today. american scientists and chinese scientists use the same math, work hard to refine and advance the same math, that then leads to the technological advances we all see - be they peaceful or otherwise.

you guys find one little issue here and one there and try to claim science is bunk. no god created the car you drive and no god figured out how to get oil from miles deep in the ground and refine it to an efficient combustible material to power your car. it took science to understand the science that created the oil.



science wins, hands down. they are mutually exclusive.






I'll be darned....I'm startin' to like this guy! ;)

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 04:05 PM
Thank you Thomas Jefferson for having the wisdom to not appoint an official state religion for we would be no different than Iran! A nation of religious nuts thinking they know the truth.



I totally agree Franco. I mean, could you imagine if we had leadership in office that was atheistic and evolutionary in his beliefs? Oh wait...

By the way, isn't that why this thread started in the first place...controversy over "religious" decisions by our government?

Religion has nothing to do with what I am arguing for. The existence of God is not a religious issue...it is a foundational issue for the very possibility of life as we know it, science as it is possible, math as it is possible, knowledge of any kind as it is possible.

Religion is man's effort to try and make ammends with God. God does not accept man's efforts...that is why Jesus had to come and die in my place and your place Franco. We cannot reconcile ourselves to God, but through Jesus we can be reconciled to God.



What just god would exclude 99% of the world's population?



Franco, you are proving my point. You are establishing a standard of morality that in an atheistic evolutionary worldview does not exist. Why would it matter to an atheist or an evolutionist?

If you want a biblical answer to your question the answer is SIN.

Romans 3:9-18 (NIV)

"...Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."[c (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#fen-NIV-27989c)]
13 "Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."[d (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#fen-NIV-27990d)]
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."[e (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#fen-NIV-27990e)]
14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[f (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#fen-NIV-27991f)]
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know."[g (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#fen-NIV-27994g)]
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."





Mankind will never move forward while he is blindfolded by myth!



That is precisely why atheists and evolutionists and any non-Christian should repent and acknowledge the sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ! and leave behind the idolotrous belief systems that separate them from God.

.

dnf777
08-30-2010, 04:06 PM
What just god would exclude 99% of the world's population? We have one person here that believes that his sect of Christianity is the only truth. That the rest of the Christians and the rest of the world have it wrong. That if you don't believe in what he does that you are damned. I think he would fit in well in some Theocracy but never where free men live!




I think he pulleth thy leg.


All non-Christian worldviews are irrational (and can be proven as such)...

SIN is the only answer.

Even my Uncle McKenna, who is an Irish Catholic Priest won't say something so wacko, even after several swigs of Bushmills....

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 04:15 PM
There is a big gap between asserting that all things are random and asserting that all things are absolute. You are suggesting the latter.


Again...that is a strawman Jeff. I am not suggesting that ALL things are absolute. I am stating emphatically that God's laws of logic, uniformity in nature, and absolute morality are indeed the preconditions for intelligibility. Without those absolute standards, which you have hypocritically used many many times throughout this debate to argue against those very things, there would be no possible way for us to be here or to know anything.

I will try again to get you to answer this question (being that I have obliged you by answering yours numerous times):

Where would you learn about logic, uniformity in nature, and absolute morality in atheism or evolutionism? Give me some text book references that list those attributes of your worldview foundation.

Don't tell me science...science depends on God's standards to be possible.

Don't tell me math...math depends on God's standards to be possible.

Don't tell me your finite fallible mind...that too depends on the general grace of God to exist.

I have given you numerous references to where in the Christian worldview one can learn of those standards...where would you gain that knowledge if the bible did not exist Jeff???


.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 04:27 PM
The universe has no beginning as it has always been here!


That is incorrect Franco.

Terry stated earlier the following:



We observe and report through the 2nd law of theromdynamics that the universe runs to entropy. That is that things proceed from a state of order to a state of disorder otherwise called entropy.


This statement supports what God has said in His Word:

Matthew 24:35 (New King James Version)

35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

So once again we have a statement made in an arbitrary fashion (your statement Franco) that is refuted emphatically by God's Word...the bible. Further, scientific data supports that finding. This demonstrates that God's Word is not only reliable, and that science backs up His Word which gives us a further assurance of the One in Whom we have believed, but that it is also eternal!


.

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 05:06 PM
Keith,

Your arguments go round and round without end. You posit many things, but these seem to be the core:


God is not a belief, God is a fact: That is a belief. From a logical perspective it is an untested hypothesis and cannot be proven by referring back to the belief (God) or statements attributed to Him (The Bible).
Logic and reason do not exist except by virtue of God: That, too is a belief. You cannot logically use an assumption to prove an assumption.
All rules are created by God and God's rules cannot be used to argue against God.: This, of course, is your Ace of Trumps. Unfortunately, it too is nothing more than an untested assumption and cannot, therefore, be used as part of an argument to prove any other assumption.You also rely on Terrie's arguments with respect to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence that the natural state of the universe is disorder and that only an entity such as God could have created the initial force associated with the big bang. However, this in itself is a mis-statement of the second law of thermodynamics, which only relates to energy entropy (not order/disorder), and only applies to closed systems.

Franco asserted one hypothesis, that you rejected, that the universe has existed since the beginning of time. If his hypothesis is true -- and it is considered to be one of the viable theories and consistent with the theory of relativity -- then the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. Energy has always moved from a more concentrated to less concentrated state. Another theory is that the universe as we know it is only part of a broader system and that the processes that led to the big bang are actually part of a broader scheme.containing multiple universes. All of this is theory, of course, placing it in the same realm as your theory of a deity.

david gibson
08-30-2010, 05:35 PM
I'll be darned....I'm startin' to like this guy! ;)

well you didnt vote for me in MK's "nimrod" poll so thats a start!

i have said all along i am not a republican, just an independent with right leanings, and a few left ideals based on scientific fact.

bowl of spaghetti for brains regards.....

dnf777
08-30-2010, 05:40 PM
well you didnt vote for me in MK's "nimrod" poll so thats a start!

i have said all along i am not a republican, just an independent with right leanings, and a few left ideals based on scientific fact.

bowl of spaghetti for brains regards.....



I've called you lots of names, but never "nimrod"! ;-)

Given you right-leaning independent status, what did you think of Beckapalooza? Good thing. Bad thing. Just a thing?

(BTW, my liberal friends describe me as a right-leaning indy also)

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 05:49 PM
Your arguments go round and round without end.


And yours don't?!?!

My argument is the same as when I started...simply put: without the existence of the God of the bible nothing could possibly exist now and we could not know anything.


You still have not answered my question Jeff...you just asserted something else.

The very fact that you are able to draw a breath is because God has bestowed His common grace upon all men.

"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Matthew 5:45

When you stop using God's standards to argue against Him Jeff then perhaps you will become rational. As of now you are not arguing rationally (that is a formal complaint against your argumentation not just hype). You borrow standards by which you argue from the One against Whom you are arguing...that is irrational.



.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 06:01 PM
That word "word" is the greek word "Logos' Its where we get the word logic

Right. And if read in such fashion John 1 could be understood as follows:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Logos...Logic), and the Word (Logos...Logic) was with God, and the Word (Logos...Logic) was God.


Good stuff Pete!



.

dnf777
08-30-2010, 06:12 PM
Your on a roll Keith,,,let um have it


religion has very little to do with God,,, take a look what JC said about many of their leaders. And look at Some of the leaders of Isreal

God didn't look kind on them when they worshiped something other than him

But God is just so he doesn't break his own laws.

Pete

Pete


Why didn't God make filet mignon and twice-baked potatoes heart-healthy, and tofu and cottage cheese artery-clogging? Answer THAT!

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 06:17 PM
You have not answered my question Jeff.


The very fact that you are able to draw a breath is because God has bestowed His common grace upon all men.

"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Matthew 5:45

When you stop using God's standards to argue against Him Jeff then perhaps you will become rational. As of now you are not arguing rationally (that is a formal complaint against your argumentation not just hype). You borrow standards by which you argue from the One against Whom you are arguing...that is irrational.



.
What question is there to answer? You assert as facts beliefs that are yours. but not mine. You then ask me how I reconcile my beliefs with yours. There is no reconciliation.

I do not believe in any god, yours or others. I do not accept that the rules of logic and order are God's because I do not believe that there is any such entity. You assert that, in the absence of a god creating order, there can be no order. You have established no foundation for that assertion that is not dependent on first accepting that your God, or any god, exists and that He is responsible for that order. You have assumed your conclusion. Beyond pointing out that logical fallacy, what response is possible?

Order and rules exist. They are not necessarily absolute insofar as we understand them. Some are clearly not absolute -- we know, for example, that the speed of light is a variable, not a constant -- and others are simply not fully understood. That does not mean there is no order but, like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, order may be relative and contextual.

The rules of logic and reason do not belong to or derive from your notions of God. They existed among the Greeks, with their pantheon of gods, among the Egyptians, the Indians, the Chinese, and for as long as man has been a reasoning species. Your laying claim to them is like an elephant staking a flag in the rear end of an elephant and claiming to have discovered the territory and to be its owner.

I have no problem with your stating, as a matter of faith, that God was responsible for that creation. However, that simply adds to the list of your untested assumptions. A pile of untested assumptions lacks the stature of even the apple falling on Newton's head.

Pete states (I am paraphrasing) that science is about evidence and reasoning but that God is about truth. I view that as a statement of faith and I don't argue it. You, by contrast, argue that your belief must be not only accepted as fact but that your God controls all rules of reason and that any who argue differently are obviously unreasonable. That is the kind of logic that was once used by Stalin to declare political opponents as insane and by the Church to burn non-believers as witches. Your assertions do not carry the weight of facts no matter how many scrolls may back them up. Fortunately for our existence as a secular, rational country, most Christians reject your notions of absolute infallibility as do believers of almost all other religious faiths in the world.

dnf777
08-30-2010, 07:12 PM
Dave thats to easy.

I eat only things high in colesterole yet I have very low colesterole:)

It has to do with sin,,,,because Adam fell so sin entered into the world,,and because of that so did sickness and death.

Prior to the fall of man there was no sickness or death. Adam transfered his dominion to Lucifer and now ole Lucifer controls the systems of this world. Thats why he could offer JC all the kingdoms of the earth because he owns them. But there will come a time when we can all eat cheeseburgers and fries. I promise. Well sort of.

Luckily I got the good genes for cheeseburger eatin,,,, its a crap shoot you know:)


pete



So in other words, Adam took a bite of the forbidden McAngus 1/3 pounder??

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 07:18 PM
Jeff come on now
You keep missing the point. Keith didn't assert fact,,,he asserted truth. Big difference. Facts can change ,but truth liveth and abideth forever

Pete
He asserted what he believes is the truth. There is a big difference. Most of the world would disagree. Obviously truth does n ot require a democratic vote. However, in the absence of proof that is not similarly dependent on circular reasoning, a rational person might at least consider the possibility that others may found their beliefs on documents and logic that have an equally rational footing.

For me, the ultimate answer to the universe and to life remains, simply, 42.:D

Cody Covey
08-30-2010, 07:42 PM
Jeff come on now
You keep missing the point. Keith didn't assert fact,,,he asserted truth. Big difference. Facts can change ,but truth liveth and abideth forever

Pete
Who says its the truth? The Word can't be True because the Word says so anymore than I can be True because i say so. The Word can be true to you based on your believes but to say that it is infallible because IT says so is pretty much a text book definition of a circular argument.

dnf777
08-30-2010, 07:46 PM
Who says its the truth? The Word can't be True because the Word says so anymore than I can be True because i say so. The Word can be true to you based on your believes but to say that it is infallible because IT says so is pretty much a text book definition of a circular argument.


God has to be sitting in his big golden throne, looking down on this thread, thinking, 'what a bunch of dumb-%$#%s!' (or nimrods) :rolleyes:

Cody Covey
08-30-2010, 07:54 PM
Oh I'm sure he has been doing that for thousands of years.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 08:07 PM
What question is there to answer?



I want you to tell me where your atheistic evolutionary worldview gives you any idea of logic, uniformity in nature, and absolute morality.

1) Evolution is a concept whereby every form of existence including matter came about by a random act of violence. Choas followed. Now, as time progresses, order is slowly becoming the standard.

From that where does uniformity come?

2) If randomness is the explanation of origins then where does logic arise. Logic is not random. Logic is absolute and immutable (which by the way are attributes of God)...evolution by its very definition is about "change".

3) Atheism and evolution have no standard of absolute morality. Atheism has no higher order...you are here then you are gone. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest...there is no absolute morality or standard of goodness in evolution. From where, then, do you obtain any sense of goodness Jeff? You should, by the standards which your worldview is founded upon, care nothing for anything other than your own self. If you exhibit love, concern, care, forgiveness, kindness, meekness, mercy, compassion, gentleness, reason, understanding, etc...you did not get those emotions/actions from teachings about evolution.




You assert as facts beliefs that are yours. but not mine.


Again...math works whether you believe it or not. Logic remains whether you believe it or not. The laws of physics remain whether you believe them or not. It is a faulty assertion to assign truth to the realm of whether you or I "believe" or not. You presuppose those things whether you say you believe them or not.




I do not accept that the rules of logic and order are God's because I do not believe that there is any such entity.


It really does not matter what you believe Jeff...logic still remains, you use it consistently because it remains, then you hypocritically deny where it comes from when you want to deny God.

You use God's standards of goodness to love your wife, your fellow worker, your friends.

You use God's standards of morality to not cheat on your wife (why would you care in an atheistic evolutionary worldview what she thinks about it? I mean dogs don't care who they partner with...and after all, in atheism and evolutionism, we are just animals...right?).




The rules of logic and reason do not belong to or derive from your notions of God.


It is not my notions of God Jeff.

God has Himself declared those things as being essential to His very nature. He declared them in nature itself (uniformity, physics, logic, morality) He declared them in His written Word (which has been tested over and over and over and over again...yet no contradictions exist), and He declared them by His very appearance on this earth in the form of Jesus the Christ.

He further declares those things now by His Holy Spirit Who testifies of Christ, guides believers into all truth, and convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement.











.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 08:09 PM
Who says its the truth?



God does.

He has issued challenge after challenge in His written Word to prove Him wrong.





.

Keith Farmer
08-30-2010, 08:16 PM
I am done for now.

Time to turn in for the evening;)



.

Franco
08-30-2010, 08:21 PM
I want you to tell me where your atheistic evolutionary worldview gives you any idea of logic, uniformity in nature, and absolute morality.




Logic comes from living experiences by Homosapien over the last 35,000 years. It was Homosapien's ability to "wonder" that help him out-survive Cro-Magum man. The more useful Logic man learned, the larger he was able to grow villages/civilization. Logic grew from Common Sense which was learn through survival.

In regards to "absolute morality", that is a notion man has yet to figure out. Probably doesn't exsist as man is but a mere mortal nor has it ever existed..

YardleyLabs
08-30-2010, 09:23 PM
I want you to tell me where your atheistic evolutionary worldview gives you any idea of logic, uniformity in nature, and absolute morality.
I answered this already. There is similarity in nature, not uniformity. What makes it interesting are all the variations from the "norm". There is no such thing as "absolute morality" although there is a great deal of similarity among cultures and over time with respect to core moral beliefs. Logic derives from thought. You may ascribe it to god as a matter of belief, but it existed long before your concept of god was ever articulated and was already advanced among peoples who would have considered your beliefs to be gross blasphemy.



1) Evolution is a concept whereby every form of existence including matter came about by a random act of violence. Choas followed. Now, as time progresses, order is slowly becoming the standard.I'm not sure where you acquired your notions of evolution, but you might want to read a little more. Your assertions have no relationship to the process articulated by Darwin and refined over the last 150 years.


From that where does uniformity come? What uniformity?


2) If randomness is the explanation of origins then where does logic arise. Logic is not random. Logic is absolute and immutable (which by the way are attributes of God)...evolution by its very definition is about "change".Randomness is not the explanation of origins. The boundary between the edge of a table and the air that surrounds it is not a firm division between wood and air, but a small area in which the molecules of the table and the surrounding air mix, causing changes in both. Notions of evolution are similar; many small changes occurring at the margins, Some of those changes become "fixed" over time; others do not. Logic is an analytic method. It is applied to theories and observations of the physical world over time to produce variable results as our understanding of the physical and philosophical world evolves. Given that, it is difficult to assert that it is either absolute or immutable.



3) Atheism and evolution have no standard of absolute morality. Atheism has no higher order...you are here then you are gone. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest...there is no absolute morality or standard of goodness in evolution. From where, then, do you obtain any sense of goodness Jeff? You should, by the standards which your worldview is founded upon, care nothing for anything other than your own self. If you exhibit love, concern, care, forgiveness, kindness, meekness, mercy, compassion, gentleness, reason, understanding, etc...you did not get those emotions/actions from teachings about evolution.
As noted already, I do not believe in an absolute morality. Even the morality of the Bible has changed over time as evidenced in discussions ad nauseum of the various rules of Leviticus. Atheism has no order imposed by an external entity. That is not the same as saying that atheists have no sense of an order extending beyond the individual or of a morality in which the needs and the desires of an individual are not surpassed in importance by the interests and desires of a group. Evolution is not about survival of the fittest, it is about survival of populations and species. Species where each entity operates without respect to others of its own kind and without respect to critical elements of the environment are not too likely to survive, much less thrive. The most successful species, from an evolutionary perspective, are those that form social communities cooperating for breeding, protection from others, housing, and food. Even more successful are those that form co-dependent relationships with other living entities outside the species -- ramora fish with sharks, bees with flowers, the bacteria in our stomachs and intestines with humans, etc. The needs of those groups are the foundation of morality whether the species in penguins, whales, bees, or humans.





Again...math works whether you believe it or not. Logic remains whether you believe it or not. The laws of physics remain whether you believe them or not. It is a faulty assertion to assign truth to the realm of whether you or I "believe" or not. You presuppose those things whether you say you believe them or not.


I agree as I have previously noted, although all of these things contain a flexibility that you seem to deny. However, each of these items is a tool which has been refined over time and extended based on its power to improve our ability to predict and modify things in nature. The same cannot be said of your notion of God.



It really does not matter what you believe Jeff...logic still remains, you use it consistently because it remains, then you hypocritically deny where it comes from when you want to deny God.

You use God's standards of goodness to love your wife, your fellow worker, your friends.

You use God's standards of morality to not cheat on your wife (why would you care in an atheistic evolutionary worldview what she thinks about it? I mean dogs don't care who they partner with...and after all, in atheism and evolutionism, we are just animals...right?).

You assert that each of these things come from God. That is a belief that you have and I do not share. Neither of us can possibly prove or disprove such matters for they are ultimately matters of faith. There is nothing hypocritical about my use of logic, my assertion of choices concerning morality and moral living, or my views of love. They probably share much in common with yours. You ascribe those things to God; I ascribe them to man and our development a social beings. In fact, I believe that a person's moral choices are much too important to blame on God. The responsibility for those choices is entirely personal. Where is my hypocrisy? You, however, seem to be denying the essence of faith in decisions concerning acceptance of God. Is that your hypocrisy? By the way, what do you mean by just animals? Animals warrant a lot more respect than that in my understanding of the nature of the universe.



It is not my notions of God Jeff.

God has Himself declared those things as being essential to His very nature. He declared them in nature itself (uniformity, physics, logic, morality) He declared them in His written Word (which has been tested over and over and over and over again...yet no contradictions exist), and He declared them by His very appearance on this earth in the form of Jesus the Christ.

He further declares those things now by His Holy Spirit Who testifies of Christ, guides believers into all truth, and convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement.

Yes, it is just your notion of God. If there is a God and you are right, you will find the eternal life you hope for while I and the majority of the world suffer eternal damnation. If that is truly the nature of the universe, I would rather burn with the damned than watch the burning from the balcony seats.

If my notion of the universe is right, death -- both mine and yours -- will be eternal and we will be remembered only by the effects we have had on the world and those around us during our brief period of living. We will, ultimately, be defined by our acts, and not by our beliefs.

Ultimately, we may both be surprised by a universe that goes far beyond what either of us has imagined. I can live without knowing those answers and on dying will no longer be in a position to influence the outcome.;-)

dnf777
08-30-2010, 10:19 PM
1) Evolution is a concept whereby every form of existence including matter came about by a random act of violence. Choas followed. Now, as time progresses, order is slowly becoming the standard.

.


I don't know where you came up with this bizarre, completely inaccurate definition of evolution, but it clearly demonstrates you have nary a clue what you're preaching about. I'll let others carry the torch on this argument if they choose. But to argue with someone who has beyond the shadow of a doubt bared total ignorance on the subject, is unlikely to be willing to learn anything from this dialogue.

Franco
08-30-2010, 10:34 PM
I don't know where you came up with this bizarre, completely inaccurate definition of evolution, but it clearly demonstrates you have nary a clue what you're preaching about. I'll let others carry the torch on this argument if they choose. But to argue with someone who has beyond the shadow of a doubt bared total ignorance on the subject, is unlikely to be willing to learn anything from this dialogue.

......Amen!

david gibson
08-30-2010, 11:09 PM
come on guys, lets not quit yet. i want to hear the story of Noah and how he got all those critters on board a boat with no means of propulsion from all over the world at a time when there was no reliable clock to enable longitudinal navigation nor sextant for latitudinal orientation, and how he got all those inland species and coastal species (ooooops, "species" is darwinian terminology, my bad) - giraffes, rattlesnakes - GRIZZLIES!!!!!! - tasmanian devils (thank god he didnt forget them or we would have been devoid of many a great looney tune cartoon in our childhoods) - everything - and yet the nimrod forgot the poor unicorn????? the lovely frolicking unicorn?

what kind of a god would allow that to happen????

absolute proof for me!

dnf777
08-31-2010, 05:52 AM
So I believe that the earth was one land surrounded by water and it split 45 hundred years ago not millions after all there were guys around talking about it, They were there. lest I digress. Throw in genetic diversity coupled with an ark about the size of a super tanker. And I'm not talkin candlewoods here and walla,,,not to hard to believe any more.

Pete

LMAO! You're really jerking Gibson's chain!
But how do you say that with a straight face?

david gibson
08-31-2010, 08:12 AM
LMAO! You're really jerking Gibson's chain!
But how do you say that with a straight face?

he's not jerking my chain. i have seen the drawings in the bible school books and trailers to steve carels movie, the ark was NOT the size of a supertanker. besides, it wouldnt have fit through the panama canal back then.

geeze, you guys think i'm dumb or somethin.

what creeps me out is he says it gave him a boner. ewwwwwww. beastiality fantasies over noahs critters has got to be cardinal sin!

dnf777
08-31-2010, 09:11 AM
Just curious Pete, how did Noah ensure that he got replicating colonies of all the bacterium, fungi, phytoplankton, viruses, prions, etc....Without infecting the animals?

These are living organisms too, and require salvaging during the flood. Did he have a team of microbiologists prepare culture vials for shipment? Did they have Level III biohazard containment vessels for ebola and Marburg viruses? That would take up a few cubits, huh?

Keith Farmer
08-31-2010, 09:19 AM
There is similarity in nature, not uniformity.


Ok.

Here is are a couple of examples:

If a scientist performs an experiment in a lab today can he expect, given the same criteria, that his results will be the same if he performs the same experiment tomorrow?

If you walk out to your car, based on previous experiences, can you safely or confidently assume that your car will start (given that the battery is charged, fuel is good and in proper amounts, etc)?

If you fly on an airplane today, visit with family, and board a plane to return home...do you assume that the plane will fly as it did on the previous trip?

When you woke up this morning did you brace yourself just in case gravity was not the same as it was yesterday but rather overnight it had changed and now you would be hurled onto the ceiling?

When you walked into the room where the computer is you are looking at now did you hold your breath thinking that all of the air might possibly be cornered in one side of the room?

What you are demonstrating, Jeff, is behavioral inconsistency. You say that there is no uniformity in nature but you presuppose that there is just to be able to live in a predictable manner.

Uniformity is hard-wired into our systems for our benefit...by God. Without uniformity NOTHING predictable would be possible. You guys know it but, just as the bible says, you are intentionally suppressing that truth.


You guys can play games and redefine evolution as you go but by definition evolution is all about change.

Finally, Jeff you have changed your standard of authority at least five times during this debate. You started with science, then jumped to math, then jumped to your own mind, then you cited Bertrand Russell, then you jumped to Augustine. There are probably many more but my point is you are demonstrating inconsistency at the highest order...which is not rational. The reason I jumped in this debate is because you charged someone with not being rational about history...perhaps you should reflect on your own understanding of what rational debate is.

I will check back later...headed out now.





.

dnf777
08-31-2010, 09:45 AM
Those things don't need a boat to survive. Most of those things already live on everyone of us.
Ecoli and many ,many other bacteria,fungi virus,,, can be viewed from scraping all that stuff.and looking under a micro scope, Aren't you a DR. I'm surprised you don't know this stuff. This is Dr.101.
Pete

Uh, yes, Pete, I counsel patients every day after they watch tv and see Lysol commercials. We live in a germophobic country. However, there are pathogens that are NOT commensal inhabitants of our bodily ecosystems, such as ebola, marburg, yellow fever, rabies, etc....

The thought that a man could build a boat and house all living creatures is preposterous. If you can't see that God needed to make up fairy tales for those who cannot understand his natural world, and would rather just read the picture book explanations, then have at it. Its far easier to believe something just 'cause you do, than to do the footwork to unravel the mysteries of the universe by scientific method. I pity the fools who deny themselves to TRUE WONDER of God's universe by just looking at the pictures. Don't you ever watch the Discovery Channel, or Nat Geo? It might open your eyes....try it.

Roger Perry
08-31-2010, 10:14 AM
See ,,that would be called "private interpretation" as stated in II pete 1:20

its actually a figure of speech. meaning this subject excites me.

See how easy it is to get it wrong when your hearts not in the right place

Now lets get back to the size of the ark. 300x 50 x30 cubits. Pretty dam big. How big is a super duper tanker

Pete

How big is a cubit?

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-31-2010, 10:45 AM
How big is a cubit?

Elbow to Hand.....Pharroah's of course.....

Come on I'm not even college educated.....and from this young generation that isnt taught these things. It saddens me even more to see your generation doesnt know this stuff...

NCA

dnf777
08-31-2010, 11:09 AM
[QUOTE=Pete;669467
I think its folly that some one would rely on their own brain and experiences to prove something did or didn't happen 4 -5 thousand years ago. You weren't there ,,,but those men were. Pete[/QUOTE]

Wait a minute, let me get this straight.

Its folly to use our brains (with the help of geological and archeologic tools) to figure out what happened..............but its NOT folly to believe some dudes were there and passed this info by word of mouth for a few thousand years, then some other dudes wrote it down.....and that's what we have to go on?

If that's the case, why lend any more creedence to Noah, than you do Zeus, Apollo, and Hermes? Those people back then saw all this, too.

YardleyLabs
08-31-2010, 11:30 AM
How big is a cubit?
0.4872 meters. That would make the ark about 40% of the length and a little over half the width of the USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier, not the starship;-)). Too big to be built in the manner specified, and not big enough to hold everything, but we already know that God is not bound by the rules that bind us.

david gibson
08-31-2010, 11:32 AM
David

I have been doing the foot work for over 30 years. I also majored in science in college and have taken graduate courses in biology. I love science. But I hate junk science and those that perpetuate it are fools.

I have also studied ancient astronomy. Can you believe it. I'm the biggest yahoo here. I don't put much weight on what man does. Man uses principles and laws set up by God ,,which keep every thing in motion.

I think its folly that some one would rely on their own brain and experiences to prove something did or didn't happen 4 -5 thousand years ago. You weren't there ,,,but those men were. And its recorded. If someone recorded the cleaving of the earth thousands of years ago with no knowledge of plate tectonics or fancy schmancy equipment then I'm impressed.

You'll never see me call God a liar.

I gotta get my ass out the door. dogs are waiting. Looking forward to the rest of the story,,,later tonight

Now go look at some pimples:D

Pete

by the same token you are believing god is the author just because some guys 5,000 yrs ago said he was.

anyone who doesnt believe the earth is about 4.6 billion yrs old and instead believes it to be about 10,000 yrs old and that men saw plate tectonics in rapid motion is not worth debating, you are locked into your religious doctrine as is your right. you are happy there and thats fine with me. i just know better. ;-)

but hey - you are in good company!!!! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSko2ixEB8U

Leddyman
08-31-2010, 12:08 PM
Keith, You have proven NOTHING with that total lack of a coherent argument. The fact that you think you need to PROVE the existence of God makes me question your FAITH in God.

I believe in a creator of the universe. That's all I need to say. Nobody can, or needs to argue with that. If someone says God is a white male with long hair, so be it. If somone says he's an asian dude who sits Indian style and makes funny hand gestures, so be it. I don't care. Why can't people just believe in the God that speaks to them, or not, and leave everyone else alone? Who cares if Jeff believes in some other explanation of the universe?
I can feel the earth, see fossils, look at the stars, and believe what I want about the creator. So can you. I don't tell you that YOU'RE wrong, please don't tell us that we're wrong. And if you do, try to use some logic besides "'cause the Bible says so....".

Exactly what about my argument was incoherent?

ducknwork
08-31-2010, 12:09 PM
but hey - you are in good company!!!! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSko2ixEB8U

This word?:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184

Maybe she should have been a little more specific and maybe....more....coherent....:D

dnf777
08-31-2010, 12:12 PM
Exactly what about my argument was incoherent?

Not you, Leddy, it was Keith Farmer's "cause man said so" argument.
I enjoyed your comments. Have you read "A Brief History of Time"? That book blew my mind. I had to go outside many times and look at the stars to remind myself that although incomprehensible, those figures are right before our eyes, and are real.

YardleyLabs
08-31-2010, 12:15 PM
Ok.

Here is are a couple of examples:

If a scientist performs an experiment in a lab today can he expect, given the same criteria, that his results will be the same if he performs the same experiment tomorrow?

If you walk out to your car, based on previous experiences, can you safely or confidently assume that your car will start (given that the battery is charged, fuel is good and in proper amounts, etc)?

If you fly on an airplane today, visit with family, and board a plane to return home...do you assume that the plane will fly as it did on the previous trip?

When you woke up this morning did you brace yourself just in case gravity was not the same as it was yesterday but rather overnight it had changed and now you would be hurled onto the ceiling?

When you walked into the room where the computer is you are looking at now did you hold your breath thinking that all of the air might possibly be cornered in one side of the room?

What you are demonstrating, Jeff, is behavioral inconsistency. You say that there is no uniformity in nature but you presuppose that there is just to be able to live in a predictable manner.

Uniformity is hard-wired into our systems for our benefit...by God. Without uniformity NOTHING predictable would be possible. You guys know it but, just as the bible says, you are intentionally suppressing that truth.


You guys can play games and redefine evolution as you go but by definition evolution is all about change.

Finally, Jeff you have changed your standard of authority at least five times during this debate. You started with science, then jumped to math, then jumped to your own mind, then you cited Bertrand Russell, then you jumped to Augustine. There are probably many more but my point is you are demonstrating inconsistency at the highest order...which is not rational. The reason I jumped in this debate is because you charged someone with not being rational about history...perhaps you should reflect on your own understanding of what rational debate is.

I will check back later...headed out now.





.
For the most part, experiments are considered confirming if the result are close, but not identical, when the results depend on physical measurements of objects with any particular substance. That is not the case at the molecular level where the level of consistency would be expected to be greater, but the measurement is problematic.

I'm not sure what is proven by the fact that a car starts other than that it was properly designed to work despite a level of variation in specifications. The term that I used was a high degree of similarity, which is not the same as uniformity, particularly from someone who is seeking to support claims of absolutes.

Planes seldom fly to and from destinations at the same speed. The trip from east coast to west takes much longer than the trip from west coast to east because of prevailing wind patterns.

When I woke up this morning, I braced myself as I sought to determine if I would need crutches to stand as I often do when first getting up. Happily I seldom have trouble standing after 10-20 minutes of stretching, but I would love a little more predictability over that part of my life. I never find myself worrying about changes in gravity or the movement of the air in the room. Both actually happen, but the variability is well within my personal levels of tolerance.

None of these things tell me anything about God, and none of these things constitute uniformity in the absolutist terms that you have been using. We engineer things with tolerances for variability from component to component, from changes over time, from changes in temperature, etc. The more closely we inspect something, the most variability we discover. The extent of those oddities arise in peculiar fashions all the time. For example, from a mathematical perspective, this equation is true: 4/2 = 1 + 1. However, if I write a computer program to perform this calculation and evaluate the result, I am likely to be told that the numbers on the left do not equal the numbers on the right. This arises because of inherent imprecision in the methods used by computer processors to handle floating point transactions. As a result, I have to structure my computer program to say that the numbers are equal when they are close enough. However, by doing that I might actually make the mistake of assuming identity of two things that are actually different.

These things are important because they are inconsistent with your overall assumptions of certainty and absolute truth. Science is dependent on stating things as hypotheses that may be tested against independently verifiable evidence. Hypotheses are viewed as weaker or stronger depending on the number of times they have been challenged without being falsified and based on the extent to which they integrate with other hypotheses to extend our understanding of the universe. To counter the bias of the observer, the hypothesis tested is typically the one that is contrary to your own belief.

As noted in the Wiki article you referenced on scientific method ()http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, myth is quite different:

In contrast, a myth enjoys uncritical belief. Imre Lakatos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos) has noted that once a narrative is constructed it becomes easier to believe (this is called the narrative fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy)).[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-26) The difference between a theory and a myth is the difference between doubt and uncritical acceptance. That is, theories are accepted by a scientific community after evidence for the theory is presented, and obvious fallacies are falsified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsification).
Your very certainty is a demonstration of the mythological character of religious belief. That doesn't mean that such beliefs are false, but it does mean they are not science.

Leddyman
08-31-2010, 12:24 PM
The logic of a universe creating itself is no more of a stretch than the notion of an intelligent entity that has always "existed" and did not, therefore, need to be created. In fact, the latter falls more into the category of deciding that anything I don't understand must be magic. Personally, I am perfectly happy to accept that there are things that we do not understand now and may not understand at any point in my lifetime. I suspect that when humans ultimately find ways to develop and test theories for what existed before the big bang that they will discover that the universe as we know it is part of a broader cycle of activity.

The "fact" that the universe has produced "exactly the precise values we need to survive" falls into the chicken/egg category. If you consider the purpose of all existence as having been the production of you as a person, the odds of success are so microscopic that your existence has the appearance of a miracle. In fact, the things that develop in an environment are the things that can develop. The fact that you were created is simply a coincidence based on all that happened along the way. The fact that humans exist and can survive in the environment of the world is a similar coincidence. The things that happened, happened. The things that survived, survived. Up until now, we are among the survivors. All thing considered, crocodiles, mosquitoes, and cockroaches have been more successful since they also still survive and have been here much longer than people.


By your A Priori assumption that there can exist nothing outside natural phenomena to explain the universe you distort your own logic. The odds are so astronomical against all of the necessary conditions occurring simultaneously as to make them impossible.

If you drop a bowl on the floor and shatter it, then pick up all of the pieces and drop them again would you expect them to spontaneously form back into a bowl? If you dropped the pieces once a second for 4.5 billion years would you expect to ever get them to spontaneously form back into a bowl? The answer is no because it is a statistical impossibility (there are a practically infinite number of combinations which result in no bowl and only one that makes a bowl and you have the universal law which says things go from an ordered state to a disordered one). This is true of your accidental theory for the origins of a highly tuned universe. It is not chicken and egg (nice try though) There is only one universe. There are an infinite number of possible conditions that would negate the possibility of life.
You love to cite science, but when you are faced with an unanswerable conundrum you casually violate the laws of science by insisting that the universe ran backwards from disorder to order in the case of origins. You can not demonstrate any evidence that the universe has the ability to spontaneously create order from disorder. You can not reproduce this claim of order from disorder. Yet by pure blind faith you insist that this must have been the case because there is no God.

Once again I say, hoist by your own petard.

Leddyman
08-31-2010, 12:31 PM
Not only have Keith and Terry proved nothing with thier shallow agruement, thye continue to rely on faulty docuents written by mortal man long after the Rabbi Jesus was gone!

In regards to the origins of the universe; the universe has no beginning, it has always been here! Again, Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Universe is many billions of years older than Earth.

The universe has no beginning as it has always been here!

Spit it out son. You can not be taken seriously if you say my argument is shallow without pointing out the places where it suffers from this defect. Your assertion that the universe is infinite is absurd and provably false. I would like to see your scientific refutation of Einstein's equations of general relativity. The universe being around 12-14 billion years old means what?

You argue like a liberal.

YardleyLabs
08-31-2010, 12:34 PM
By your A Priori assumption that there can exist nothing outside natural phenomena to explain the universe you distort your own logic. The odds are so astronomical against all of the necessary conditions occurring simultaneously as to make them impossible.

If you drop a bowl on the floor and shatter it, then pick up all of the pieces and drop them again would you expect them to spontaneously form back into a bowl? If you dropped the pieces once a second for 4.5 billion years would you expect to ever get them to spontaneously form back into a bowl? The answer is no because it is a statistical impossibility (there are a practically infinite number of combinations which result in no bowl and only one that makes a bowl and you have the universal law which says things go from an ordered state to a disordered one). This is true of your accidental theory for the origins of a highly tuned universe. It is not chicken and egg (nice try though) There is only one universe. There are an infinite number of possible conditions that would negate the possibility of life.
You love to cite science, but when you are faced with an unanswerable conundrum you casually violate the laws of science by insisting that the universe ran backwards from disorder to order in the case of origins. You can not demonstrate any evidence that the universe has the ability to spontaneously create order from disorder. You can not reproduce this claim of order from disorder. Yet by pure blind faith you insist that this must have been the case because there is no God.

Once again I say, hoist by your own petard.
In fact, I addressed your argument explicitly. When has the universe been repeatedly reformed into a bowl? You are making the assumption that what exists now was actually the intentional purpose of all that happened before. I would contend that what exists now is just that. There are millions and millions of stars and millions more planets. There are atmospheres of many different combinations of gasses at many different temperatures. Life evolved around the conditions that exist on Earth. It may well have existed or still exist in some form in the conditions that exist on Mars. It may or may not exist in conditions found on other planets around the universe as well. Given long enough at their word processors, all those monkeys sitting in a room may well write what Shakespeare has written before or even what Shakespeare would have been proud to write. That doesn't mean that those monkeys were inspired authors.

Roger Perry
08-31-2010, 01:18 PM
Elbow to Hand.....Pharroah's of course.....

Come on I'm not even college educated.....and from this young generation that isnt taught these things. It saddens me even more to see your generation doesnt know this stuff...

NCA

Would that be to the tip of the longest finger or to the wrist???????

dnf777
08-31-2010, 02:21 PM
Would that be to the tip of the longest finger or to the wrist???????


wasn't that you that posted that picture of W Bush demonstrating what a cubit is?

Roger Perry
08-31-2010, 03:33 PM
wasn't that you that posted that picture of W Bush demonstrating what a cubit is?

I guess it was.:lol::oops:

Keith Farmer
08-31-2010, 04:26 PM
For the most part, experiments are considered confirming if the result are close, but not identical, when the results depend on physical measurements of objects with any particular substance. That is not the case at the molecular level where the level of consistency would be expected to be greater, but the measurement is problematic.




The ability to perform scientific experimentation is based on the uniformity of nature. If, as you finally admitted, in your worldview all is random..."there is no uniformity in nature...there is similarity" then predictable scientific experimentation could not be possible.

Without uniformity math is impossible.

Without uniformity the laws of physics would be non-existent.

Without uniformity life would be impossible...


Uniformity is logical in that:

Uniformity must be true in order for math, physics, life, (and I might add morality) to be possible.

The laws of physics must be true in order for science to be possible.

Math must be true in order for science to be possible.




I never find myself worrying about changes in gravity or the movement of the air in the room.


That is true because uniformity in nature is hardwired into you by the God Who created you.

Here is one example of where one learns about the uniformity in nature from the biblical God alone:

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NASB)



Planes seldom fly to and from destinations at the same speed.


That was not my assertion. Once again you have established a strawman in order to be able to argue when in reality you cannot argue with the truth of my statement.

Planes use the exact same laws of physics to be capable of flying now just as they have in the past...because those laws do not randomly change; they are rooted in the uniformity of nature.




Science is dependent on stating things as hypotheses that may be tested against independently Science is dependent on stating things as hypotheses that may be tested against independently verifiable evidence.


First, you are presupposing that science is possible based on a biblical understanding of how the universe is sustained. By your own admission uniformity does not exist so you must borrow that standard of truth in order to assert that science is even possible.


By what standards of predictability in a random universe could scientists test anything? If the universe is random and void of uniformity (as you stated it was) then, as I have clearly stated, math, physics, and the composition and stability of the actual components themselves could not be trusted in order to make testing possible.



verifiable evidence

Verifiable how? Evidence is typically verified via empirical means. Your assertion presupposes that one's senses are reliable. Since one's thoughts are transmitted via chemicals in the brain those chemicals must be based in uniformity in order for one to have any sense reliability whatsoever. If those chemicals randomly change as taught in evolutionism, since they are random and not stable, then there is absolutely no way to determine whether one's senses are reliable.




.

Keith Farmer
08-31-2010, 04:30 PM
Life evolved around the conditions that exist on Earth.

That is an unproven arbitrary statement. You assume that it is true then you argue in an effort to prove it...that is the fallacy of circular reasoning.




.

JDogger
08-31-2010, 04:34 PM
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/make_it_stop.jpg

Cody Covey
08-31-2010, 05:31 PM
That is an unproven arbitrary statement. You assume that it is true then you argue in an effort to prove it...that is the fallacy of circular reasoning.




.

And God is proven where other than a book that was passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years? I'm not saying its not true just trying to figure out where it has been proven?

road kill
08-31-2010, 05:44 PM
2 Jehovah's Witnesses just came to my door.

Reminded me of this thread.





RK

Leddyman
08-31-2010, 06:21 PM
In fact, I addressed your argument explicitly. When has the universe been repeatedly reformed into a bowl? You are making the assumption that what exists now was actually the intentional purpose of all that happened before. I would contend that what exists now is just that. There are millions and millions of stars and millions more planets. There are atmospheres of many different combinations of gasses at many different temperatures. Life evolved around the conditions that exist on Earth. It may well have existed or still exist in some form in the conditions that exist on Mars. It may or may not exist in conditions found on other planets around the universe as well. Given long enough at their word processors, all those monkeys sitting in a room may well write what Shakespeare has written before or even what Shakespeare would have been proud to write. That doesn't mean that those monkeys were inspired authors.

The bowl was an illustration of the impossibility of complexity arising from chaos. (I thought you were smart enough to grasp that) Do you assert that the universe is not complex and ordered? The monkey analogy is false. The monkeys will never reproduce even one page of Shakespeare in the 14.5 billion years they have to work on it. It can't happen and never will.

The complexity of the universe demands an intelligent creator.

Life did not evolve. Please give me your version of the possible spontaneous creation of a reproducible life form and tell me how many genes it had in its DNA, how RNA simultaneously evolved in order to read the DNA, how all the amino acids had the proper chirality, well we'll stop there. The problem is much more complex that that but after you tell me how that could have happened we'll get to the jump from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction between two individual eukaryotic organisms.


Hominid please!

You nor science can demonstrate even one example of an evolutionary jump (not one) but you keep worshiping at that altar and looking down your nose at us primitive superstitious fools.

Ironic regards,

Keith Farmer
08-31-2010, 06:22 PM
And God is proven where

I have already answered that question...


other than a book that was passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years?

That is the fallacy of prejudicial conjecture. If, perhaps, you would invest some time in research you would know that your statement is incorrect.


I'm not saying its not true

What are you saying?



just trying to figure out where it has been proven?


For a start you could take a look in the mirror. God created you in His image...that is ample proof according to Romans chapter one.






.

Leddyman
08-31-2010, 06:29 PM
And God is proven where other than a book that was passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years? I'm not saying its not true just trying to figure out where it has been proven?

God cannot be proven. The evidence certainly suggests that God is the most reasonable explanation for the conditions we observe in the universe which we inhabit.

Why?
Spontaneous creation would mean that the universe created itself from nothing and got all conditions for life correct on one try.
Spontaneous creation of life from inert matter is impossible. If it were possible it would be replicated in a laboratory. But guess what? Life is too complex even to be created in a laboratory by the most intelligent scientists on this planet. Yet hey would have you believe it did it by itself.

It takes more faith to belive in random creation than it does to believe in God.

YardleyLabs
08-31-2010, 06:34 PM
The ability to perform scientific experimentation is based on the uniformity of nature. If, as you finally admitted, in your worldview all is random..."there is no uniformity in nature...there is similarity" then predictable scientific experimentation could not be possible.

Without uniformity math is impossible.

Without uniformity the laws of physics would be non-existent.

Without uniformity life would be impossible...


Uniformity is logical in that:

Uniformity must be true in order for math, physics, life, (and I might add morality) to be possible.

The laws of physics must be true in order for science to be possible.

Math must be true in order for science to be possible.




That is true because uniformity in nature is hardwired into you by the God Who created you.

Here is one example of where one learns about the uniformity in nature from the biblical God alone:

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NASB)



That was not my assertion. Once again you have established a strawman in order to be able to argue when in reality you cannot argue with the truth of my statement.

Planes use the exact same laws of physics to be capable of flying now just as they have in the past...because those laws do not randomly change; they are rooted in the uniformity of nature.




First, you are presupposing that science is possible based on a biblical understanding of how the universe is sustained. By your own admission uniformity does not exist so you must borrow that standard of truth in order to assert that science is even possible.


By what standards of predictability in a random universe could scientists test anything? If the universe is random and void of uniformity (as you stated it was) then, as I have clearly stated, math, physics, and the composition and stability of the actual components themselves could not be trusted in order to make testing possible.




Verifiable how? Evidence is typically verified via empirical means. Your assertion presupposes that one's senses are reliable. Since one's thoughts are transmitted via chemicals in the brain those chemicals must be based in uniformity in order for one to have any sense reliability whatsoever. If those chemicals randomly change as taught in evolutionism, since they are random and not stable, then there is absolutely no way to determine whether one's senses are reliable.




.
Keith,

You are so lost in the world of science and math that you should remain within the comforts of your good book. I am not even going to try to go through all the details again since your ears and mind seem to be already too full. I will state that when you say:


If, as you finally admitted, in your worldview all is random..."there is no uniformity in nature...there is similarity" then predictable scientific experimentation could not be possible.
You are grossly misstating what I said (at no point did I say that my world view is random, only you have said that) but you are completely and totally wrong in saying that in a world where bodies and measurements are similar but not identical that science is impossible. If you were accurate in your statement, none of the science that brings us the modern world as we know it would have been possible -- quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, things like the elasticity of metals or the creation and manipulation of alloys, and even the technologies that are used to build microprocessors and hard disk drives would all be impossible.

Keith Farmer
08-31-2010, 06:38 PM
Chemical evolution, based on random activity of molecules, fails to adequately account for the origin of the proteins required for even the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium. This bacteria has one chromosome, a cell membrane, but lacks a cell wall and has the smallest genome of any known self-replicating organism. It has 470 genes, which contain an average of 1,040 nucleotide base pairs (bp). This implies that the average size protein coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids. The probability of forming, by a random assembly method, one such average-size protein molecule containing the amino acid residues in a required sequence is only 1/10451. Dwain Ford

Terry, just to give support to your post.





.

Cody Covey
08-31-2010, 06:43 PM
God cannot be proven. The evidence certainly suggests that God is the most reasonable explanation for the conditions we observe in the universe which we inhabit.

Why?
Spontaneous creation would mean that the universe created itself from nothing and got all conditions for life correct on one try.
Spontaneous creation of life from inert matter is impossible. If it were possible it would be replicated in a laboratory. But guess what? Life is too complex even to be created in a laboratory by the most intelligent scientists on this planet. Yet hey would have you believe it did it by itself.

It takes more faith to belive in random creation than it does to believe in God.Finally something we can agree upon. Although Keith has stated multiple times in this thread that God has been proven, and now here you are stating that's not possible. Which is it?

YardleyLabs
08-31-2010, 06:50 PM
Chemical evolution, based on random activity of molecules, fails to adequately account for the origin of the proteins required for even the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium. This bacteria has one chromosome, a cell membrane, but lacks a cell wall and has the smallest genome of any known self-replicating organism. It has 470 genes, which contain an average of 1,040 nucleotide base pairs (bp). This implies that the average size protein coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids. The probability of forming, by a random assembly method, one such average-size protein molecule containing the amino acid residues in a required sequence is only 1/10451. Dwain Ford
Terry, just to give support to your post.



.
Talk about straw man arguments. No one has ever suggested that genetic structure was created from nothing through the random activities of molecules. That is not part of Darwinism or of evolutionary science. Very small steps were involved at each point in the process. That's why none of it could have been done in only 6,000 years. Take away your arbitrary time limit and recognize that hundreds of millions of years may have been needed to create the first amino acid which needed to exist long before the simplest living organism would have a chance.

Cody Covey
08-31-2010, 06:50 PM
I have already answered that question...



That is the fallacy of prejudicial conjecture. If, perhaps, you would invest some time in research you would know that your statement is incorrect.



What are you saying?



For a start you could take a look in the mirror. God created you in His image...that is ample proof according to Romans chapter one.






.I have already answered that question...

You haven't, you have stated because I'm here there is God...well then i state that because I am here there is no possibility of God. since we are just throwing randomness out there


That is the fallacy of prejudicial conjecture. If, perhaps, you would invest some time in research you would know that your statement is incorrect.

Then go ahead and enlighten us since that seems to be a common thought...:rolleyes:


What are you saying?

I, like Dave who had the same exchange with you, actually do believe in God and consider myself a Christian. I do not agree with you about God at all and do not believe we were just supposed to take everything outlined in the bible for exactly what is said. Do you really believe God just wanted a bunch of mindless drones roaming around or maybe just maybe he wanted people to come up with their own conclusions?


For a start you could take a look in the mirror. God created you in His image...that is ample proof according to Romans chapter one.

Sorry because I'm here isn't a valid argument...What if i said That you were created in George Bush's image? its the same argument, and it makes no sense.

Keith Farmer
08-31-2010, 06:59 PM
You are so lost in the world of science and math that you should remain within the comforts of your good book.



Jeff, that is a fallacy known as a question-begging epithet. You have not established proof of your claim...just another arbitrary assertion. In fact, I believe my science and math knowledge are more than suffecient to argue with you.




I am not even going to try to go through all the details again since your ears and mind seem to be already too full.


Fine with me if you want to concede defeat.




You are grossly misstating what I said



I do not agree with your assessment Jeff, but in your worldview of relativity what does it matter?

By the way, let's look at your statement:



There is similarity in nature, not uniformity.


By your own words you state that there is no uniformity in nature. The alternative to no uniformity is randomness Jeff...nothing else is possible. If there is no uniformity there must be randomness...that is logical and accurate.

You also state that there is similarity.

First: Your statement is contradictory to your relativistic worldview from which you have emphatically stated that there are no absolutes. You are stating an absolute which demonstrates inconsistent behavior on your part and that is not rational...by default your argument is not cogent.

Second: If there is only similarity in nature then one could assume (how I don't really know because our senses would not be reliable), for example, that the laws of physics we depend on today would only be similar to those laws tomorrow. In other words, since there is no uniformity in nature we cannot assume that the laws of physics will be the same today as they were yesterday. All we are left with is something similar to the laws of physics but not REALLY the laws of physics.

Your argument Jeff is not cogent since we know for certain that the laws of physics are indeed the same today as they were yesterday. We presuppose the existence of those laws even if we don't know they exist because God has wired that knowledge into our brains.










.

road kill
08-31-2010, 06:59 PM
Talk about straw man arguments. No one has ever suggested that genetic structure was created from nothing through the random activities of molecules. That is not part of Darwinism or of evolutionary science. Very small steps were involved at each point in the process. That's why none of it could have been done in only 6,000 years. Take away your arbitrary time limit and recognize that hundreds of millions of years may have been needed to create the first amino acid which needed to exist long before the simplest living organism would have a chance.

And the soul of a human evolved thru SCIENCE!!


You see, it is paramount for the secular progressive to deny and disprove God for 2 reasons.

#1--If God exists it negates every principal the secular progressives beleive in.
Ex: A womans right to do what she wants with her body.
Some might say that it is God's body and God's baby.

#2--These actions could be at the behest of the devil/satan or right and wrong.
The secular progressive prefers blurry grey areas.


YOU SEE, IN MAN'S EFFORTS TO UNDERSTAND, THINGS MUST BE CONVERTED TO RULES AND IDEALS WE CAN COMPREHEND, OUR TERMS.
PERHAPS GOD MADE US IN HIS LIKENESS, CONTRARY TO THE POPULAR BELEIF THAT GOD IS MADE IN MAN'S LIKENESS.

IF YOU REMOVE ANY SEMBLANCE TO MAN FROM GOD AND satan, IT COULD MAKE THESE EXPLANATIONS MORE PLAUSEBLE.

Let the spin begin.

I would add that my caps/lock key got stuck, I sam too lazy to retype.
Also, I am not stating an absolute for anyone other than me.
And, God does not tell me how you should behave, he tells me how I should behave.

There is a God, I am not him.
Anything anti-God, to me, is satan.
I beleive and have faith in that, just as Yardley has FAITH in that there is no God.


RK

Keith Farmer
08-31-2010, 07:23 PM
Chemicals present on the early earth assembled themselves to form cells. The scientific method can help us understand how this happened. GlencoePH-CampbellPH-MillerHoltArticles



The quote above lists exactly what is taught in textbooks in our nation's public school systems.

Note that the origin of life in chemical evolution was dependent on chemicals present on earth assembling themselves to form cells.

I assert that my argument is not a strawman argument since the very textbooks our nation's public schools are using say the very same thing.

Now, I am not going to continue down this evidential arguing path since we have yet to resolve the previous debate. However, to clarify, I am sound in my argumentation and my argument is cogent.




.

david gibson
08-31-2010, 07:40 PM
The quote above lists exactly what is taught in textbooks in our nation's public school systems.

Note that the origin of life in chemical evolution was dependent on chemicals present on earth assembling themselves to form cells.

I assert that my argument is not a strawman argument since the very textbooks our nation's public schools are using say the very same thing.

Now, I am not going to continue down this evidential arguing path since we have yet to resolve the previous debate. However, to clarify, I am sound in my argumentation and my argument is cogent.



.



hmmmm...interesting.

even more interesting is the periodic table of the elements remains essentially unchanged over more than a century - through the time that took us to the moon and saw multitudes of advancements separate from any religion.....save for a few added elements that exist for mere nanoseconds

so basically, we are getting closer to gods thinking? we are close to figuring HIM out? is that a good or bad thing??/

amazing how smart some of those guys were way back when......

Franco
08-31-2010, 07:43 PM
And the soul of a human evolved thru SCIENCE!!


You see, it is paramount for the secular progressive to deny and disprove God for 2 reasons.

#1--If God exists it negates every principal the secular progressives beleive in.
Ex: A womans right to do what she wants with her body.
Some might say that it is God's body and God's baby.

#2--These actions could be at the behest of the devil/satan or right and wrong.
The secular progressive prefers blurry grey areas.


YOU SEE, IN MAN'S EFFORTS TO UNDERSTAND, THINGS MUST BE CONVERTED TO RULES AND IDEALS WE CAN COMPREHEND, OUR TERMS.
PERHAPS GOD MADE US IN HIS LIKENESS, CONTRARY TO THE POPULAR BELEIF THAT GOD IS MADE IN MAN'S LIKENESS.

IF YOU REMOVE ANY SEMBLANCE TO MAN FROM GOD AND satan, IT COULD MAKE THESE EXPLANATIONS MORE PLAUSEBLE.

Let the spin begin.

I would add that my caps/lock key got stuck, I sam too lazy to retype.
Also, I am not stating an absolute for anyone other than me.
And, God does not tell me how you should behave, he tells me how I should behave.

There is a God, I am not him.
Anything anti-God, to me, is satan.
I beleive and have faith in that, just as Yardley has FAITH in that there is no God.


RK

I've never considered myself a Secular Progressive but, I guess the lable fits. I think I've been called worse somewhere in the past.;-)

I am pro balanced budget, free enterprise, military, little government and freedom. I am against entitlements, big government, high taxes and organized religion.

I believe most religions impeed mankind's progress.

Oh, and in regards to the goals of Secular Progressives; I've stated mine. I think most of us are just seeking knowledge.

Franco
08-31-2010, 07:53 PM
However, to clarify, I am sound in my argumentation and my argument is cogent.


.

Nope!

I would say you are sound in your faith. Your reasoning has more holes than a block of Swiss.

And, I am glad they teach science in schools. You have the freedom to teach Creationism at home/church.

YardleyLabs
08-31-2010, 07:58 PM
And the soul of a human evolved thru SCIENCE!!


You see, it is paramount for the secular progressive to deny and disprove God for 2 reasons.

#1--If God exists it negates every principal the secular progressives beleive in.
Ex: A womans right to do what she wants with her body.
Some might say that it is God's body and God's baby.

#2--These actions could be at the behest of the devil/satan or right and wrong.
The secular progressive prefers blurry grey areas.


YOU SEE, IN MAN'S EFFORTS TO UNDERSTAND, THINGS MUST BE CONVERTED TO RULES AND IDEALS WE CAN COMPREHEND, OUR TERMS.
PERHAPS GOD MADE US IN HIS LIKENESS, CONTRARY TO THE POPULAR BELEIF THAT GOD IS MADE IN MAN'S LIKENESS.

IF YOU REMOVE ANY SEMBLANCE TO MAN FROM GOD AND satan, IT COULD MAKE THESE EXPLANATIONS MORE PLAUSEBLE.

Let the spin begin.

I would add that my caps/lock key got stuck, I sam too lazy to retype.
Also, I am not stating an absolute for anyone other than me.
And, God does not tell me how you should behave, he tells me how I should behave.

There is a God, I am not him.
Anything anti-God, to me, is satan.
I beleive and have faith in that, just as Yardley has FAITH in that there is no God.


RK
What a crock!


Nothing "evolves through science". Science is an approach for studying natural phenomena. As Keith is fond of saying, things are what they are regardless of beliefs. Science provides a systematic approach for observing, hypothesizing, and challenging to gain an increasingly complete understanding of that which is observed. Evolution is one scientific theory for explaining observed phenomena. It has been challenged repeatedly for more than a century and remains very robust. While religion has been around much longer, it has been treated as myth -- that is, beyond challenge or proof.
It is not paramount for me to prove the non-exitence of a deity. I have already stated my belief that no such proof is possible and that the answer is not one that I even consider to be important. What I do believe is important is the anti-scientific and anti-pragmatic thought processes used by Keith and others to shore up beliefs that are at odds with most scientific experience because those are the type of challenges that lead us back to the Inquisition. Saudi Arabia is a good example of what happens when religion becomes the censor of science and scientific education. Religion based on faith does not bother me at all. Religion masquerading as science does.
Science is predicated on "blurry gray areas." Those are the focus of future work. Pretending to know all the answers in a context that does not encourage freewheeling and objective examination is a foundation for tyranny.

Keith Farmer
08-31-2010, 08:17 PM
I would say you are sound in your faith.

You are not my standard for ultimate authority Franco...but I appreciate the nod.


Your reasoning has more holes than a block of Swiss.



Question begging epithet.


And, I am glad they teach science in schools.

I am more than happy for science to be taught in schools. The problem is, and you are demonstrating the point here, that "science" is now being defined as evolutionism...which is not science but rather a concept and a worldview. Basically, evolutionism is another religious faith system that is being paraded as "science".



You have the freedom to teach Creationism at home/church.


Thank God for that Franco!!! Otherwise many of our children would be taught lies about their origins.

By the way Franco, why do you care what is being taught in schools? If you are an evolutionist then by the standards in your worldview you should not be concerned about what other folks are learning...since it does not contribute to your survival status.

Once again an evolutionist has demonstrated an inconsistent behavioral pattern (professing to believe in survival of the fittest but demonstrating concern for others...which that kind of concern is ONLY found in the biblical worldview). Such inconsistency reduces the posed argument to bunk.




.

road kill
08-31-2010, 08:28 PM
I've never considered myself a Secular Progressive but, I guess the lable fits. I think I've been called worse somewhere in the past.;-)

I am pro balanced budget, free enterprise, military, little government and freedom. I am against entitlements, big government, high taxes and organized religion.

I believe most religions impeed mankind's progress.

Oh, and in regards to the goals of Secular Progressives; I've stated mine. I think most of us are just seeking knowledge.
Secular progressive defines a philosophy to me.
Not a slur, though I vehemently disagree with the philosophy.

But much like the term "liberal" most that are deny it.


RK

road kill
08-31-2010, 08:32 PM
What a crock!


Nothing "evolves through science". Science is an approach for studying natural phenomena. As Keith is fond of saying, things are what they are regardless of beliefs. Science provides a systematic approach for observing, hypothesizing, and challenging to gain an increasingly complete understanding of that which is observed. Evolution is one scientific theory for explaining observed phenomena. It has been challenged repeatedly for more than a century and remains very robust. While religion has been around much longer, it has been treated as myth -- that is, beyond challenge or proof.
It is not paramount for me to prove the non-exitence of a deity. I have already stated my belief that no such proof is possible and that the answer is not one that I even consider to be important. What I do believe is important is the anti-scientific and anti-pragmatic thought processes used by Keith and others to shore up beliefs that are at odds with most scientific experience because those are the type of challenges that lead us back to the Inquisition. Saudi Arabia is a good example of what happens when religion becomes the censor of science and scientific education. Religion based on faith does not bother me at all. Religion masquerading as science does.
Science is predicated on "blurry gray areas." Those are the focus of future work. Pretending to know all the answers in a context that does not encourage freewheeling and objective examination is a foundation for tyranny.

They may be a "CROCK" to you (nice cheap shot) but they are my beleifs.
That "crock" means as much to me as your "crock" does to you.

You spend as much if not more time trying to disprove God's existence as Keith does trying to prove his existence.

I'll tell you something else, you will call for him before you die!!
Guaruntee it...........and I guaruntee he will be there.........


RK

YardleyLabs
08-31-2010, 08:48 PM
They may be a "CROCK" to you (nice cheap shot) but they are my beleifs.
That "crock" means as much to me as your "crock" does to you.

You spend as much if not more time trying to disprove God's existence as Keith does trying to prove his existence.

I'll tell you something else, you will call for him before you die!!
Guaruntee it...........


RK
In fact, if you read through my posts you will see that I have consistently stated that none of my comments in any way challenges the existence of God. Belief in God is a matter of faith, as is belief that there is no God. Science does not explain enough about the formation of the universe to allow a conclusion to be made either way. In calling your comments a "crock", it had nothing to do with your belief in God. It had everything to do with your statements about the beliefs of others. I addressed three specific issues in your post. None of those issues addressed belief in a deity.

With respect to your statement that I "will call for him" before I die, I cannot possibly respond. I am not a fortune teller. I can tell you that my father, a confirmed atheist, died a confirmed atheist. He fought death every step of the way, but never once called on any god in any form. It simply wasn't a concept that was part of his world view any more than it is part of mine.

Leddyman
08-31-2010, 09:53 PM
Talk about straw man arguments. No one has ever suggested that genetic structure was created from nothing through the random activities of molecules. That is not part of Darwinism or of evolutionary science. Very small steps were involved at each point in the process. That's why none of it could have been done in only 6,000 years. Take away your arbitrary time limit and recognize that hundreds of millions of years may have been needed to create the first amino acid which needed to exist long before the simplest living organism would have a chance.

Dude! You are either ignorant or insane. Darwinism has three legs. No one, not even the most ardent neo darwinist denies these three legs are necesary for the stool of Darwinism to stand. I seriously doubt you could name them without help. They are: 1. Incremental genetic mutation (which must add genetic information and be beneficial to the organism) 2. Natural selection (which is the only one of the legs that actually exists and is the foundation for the fraud) and 3. Spontaneous generation of the first life form.
Tell me how spontaneous generation of the first life form is not required by Darwinism. There are no very small steps between living organisms and non living matter. It is either alive or it isn't. Regale us with some of those very small steps.

BTW that opens a whole nother interesting can of worms. What is life? A person is alive one minute and dead the next. The whole chemical composition of that person is still there. What left? Why can't you revive it?

More than an ATP motor regards,

depittydawg
08-31-2010, 09:56 PM
And the soul of a human evolved thru SCIENCE!!


You see, it is paramount for the secular progressive to deny and disprove God for 2 reasons.

#1--If God exists it negates every principal the secular progressives beleive in.


RK

That's quite a stretch RK. In fact Jesus was a radical 'progressive' in his lifetime.

david gibson
08-31-2010, 10:21 PM
Dude! You are either ignorant or insane. Darwinism has three legs. No one, not even the most ardent neo darwinist denies these three legs are necesary for the stool of Darwinism to stand. I seriously doubt you could name them without help. They are: 1. Incremental genetic mutation (which must add genetic information and be beneficial to the organism) 2. Natural selection (which is the only one of the legs that actually exists and is the foundation for the fraud) and 3. Spontaneous generation of the first life form.
Tell me how spontaneous generation of the first life form is not required by Darwinism. There are no very small steps between living organisms and non living matter. It is either alive or it isn't. Regale us with some of those very small steps.

BTW that opens a whole nother interesting can of worms. What is life? A person is alive one minute and dead the next. The whole chemical composition of that person is still there. What left? Why can't you revive it?

More than an ATP motor regards,

interesting query - but remember - even though the "life" of the "person" is gone, there is still life within multitudes of cells within that dead body......

i am convinced that most of the issues with people understanding science and evolution is their inability to conceive of geologic time. we know without doubt that south america and africa were once joined, the rock and fossil record as well as subsea sonar and discovery of the mid-atlantic ridge prove it. the genesis folks may say that god put things that way, whatever, when you listen to their explanation it falls apart because he would have had to create a multitude of false beginnings. anyway, we know that the plates are spreading at ~1.5 inches per year, and that has been steady since the split of pangea. so - since the time Jesus walked the earth - and i do believe he was a very special man who walked the earth and influenced many lives in a positive manner - south america and africa have moved a mere ~ 130 yds apart. goal post to goal post or so, vs over 1,000 miles of separation altogether. and there was another continent before that even.................

even more fodder for the fire regards....

Leddyman
08-31-2010, 11:26 PM
interesting query - but remember - even though the "life" of the "person" is gone, there is still life within multitudes of cells within that dead body......

i am convinced that most of the issues with people understanding science and evolution is their inability to conceive of geologic time. we know without doubt that south america and africa were once joined, the rock and fossil record as well as subsea sonar and discovery of the mid-atlantic ridge prove it. the genesis folks may say that god put things that way, whatever, when you listen to their explanation it falls apart because he would have had to create a multitude of false beginnings. anyway, we know that the plates are spreading at ~1.5 inches per year, and that has been steady since the split of pangea. so - since the time Jesus walked the earth - and i do believe he was a very special man who walked the earth and influenced many lives in a positive manner - south america and africa have moved a mere ~ 130 yds apart. goal post to goal post or so, vs over 1,000 miles of separation altogether. and there was another continent before that even.................

even more fodder for the fire regards....

I'm sorry...I tried to follow that but I fail to see what geology and a supposed supercontinent have to do with the spontaneous creation of life.

How is there life withing the cells? Are you saying they are still alive? The cells cease all metabolic activity very quickly after death due to a lack of ATP provided to them through normal processes such as respiration.

Franco
08-31-2010, 11:30 PM
By the way Franco, why do you care what is being taught in schools? If you are an evolutionist then by the standards in your worldview you should not be concerned about what other folks are learning...since it does not contribute to your survival status.

Once again an evolutionist has demonstrated an inconsistent behavioral pattern (professing to believe in survival of the fittest but demonstrating concern for others...which that kind of concern is ONLY found in the biblical worldview). Such inconsistency reduces the posed argument to bunk.




.

Your notion that those that believe in evolution don't care about anything but survival is physco.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-31-2010, 11:58 PM
Would that be to the tip of the longest finger or to the wrist???????

actually there are 7 measurements, the "cubit" was commonly known as the length from Pharroah's elbow to the base of his hand or "wrist." the 7 extra measurements were the lenghts added for "palm digit" measurements...a measurement could be taken by using the elbow to pharroah's thumb and then using the 4 remaining digits "peaks and valley's" multiplied by 7 for a totall of 28 different measurements.

Confusing enough for you....go like this...hold your had in front of your face...draw a line from your elbow to your thumb tip...now look at your pinky, and count the tip of it as one, then the valley between your pinky and your ring finger as 2 the tip of your ring finger as 3, the valley as 4, your "Bush Finger tip as 5, the valley as 6 and your pointer finger tip as 7....7 points x 4 fingers= 28 palm digits...all of different lengths

As Pharraohs changed sizes were changed as well, most feel it was becasue each ruler felt he was "BIGGER" and measurements should refelect it...it was later revised and revised and revised...Hebrews, Romans, Persians, Ottomans, etc etc...

If I remember my history correctly, the current standard is the "short cubit" which is 20 inches.


wasn't that you that posted that picture of W Bush demonstrating what a cubit is?

I applaud the man for having the STONES to use it...lol


I guess it was.:lol::oops:

NCA

M&K's Retrievers
09-01-2010, 12:11 AM
actually there are 7 measurements, the "cubit" was commonly known as the length from Pharroah's elbow to the base of his hand or "wrist." the 7 extra measurements were the lenghts added for "palm digit" measurements...a measurement could be taken by using the elbow to pharroah's thumb and then using the 4 remaining digits "peaks and valley's" multiplied by 7 for a totall of 28 different measurements.

Confusing enough for you....go like this...hold your had in front of your face...draw a line from your elbow to your thumb tip...now look at your pinky, and count the tip of it as one, then the valley between your pinky and your ring finger as 2 the tip of your ring finger as 3, the valley as 4, your "Bush Finger tip as 5, the valley as 6 and your pointer finger tip as 7....7 points x 4 fingers= 28 palm digits...all of different lengths

As Pharraohs changed sizes were changed as well, most feel it was becasue each ruler felt he was "BIGGER" and measurements should refelect it...it was later revised and revised and revised...Hebrews, Romans, Persians, Ottomans, etc etc...

If I remember my history correctly, the current standard is the "short cubit" which is 20 inches.



I applaud the man for having the STONES to use it...lol



NCA

Is this Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young?

Nor_Cal_Angler
09-01-2010, 01:15 AM
Is this Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young?

Pope and Young.....if you must know...speaking of which look for my buddy's non-typical to hit the books...took it some time ago ...I think you gotta wait 60 days for drying right....I cant remember..I'll ask again when he took it..

I am pretty sure it was a mule...possibily gonna go in the 260's for sure in the 240's maybe 250's this thing is FREAK'N REDICULOUS!!!!!!!


I'll ask him if he wants me to post his info (just in case he doesnt want me to jinx him before he gets a final answer) and find out exactly what it was and his guess at what its gonna score...I think I remeber him saying it should do above 240 but it was a few weeks ago....

NCA

PS...Mike and I both know it will not break the world record but he thinks it might break the top 5 all time....

dnf777
09-01-2010, 05:42 AM
There are no very small steps between living organisms and non living matter. It is either alive or it isn't. Regale us with some of those very small steps.,

Scientists have made short amino acid sequences in labs that have been self-replicating. I will grant you, we have no modern Dr. Frankenstein, but you asked for small steps, and creating a basic prion that is self-replicating is indeed a small step in the life chain of development. Just like throughout history, science will replace religion in terms of explaning the natural world. I doubt we well EVER answer the ultimate questions of the origins of the universe, but seeing Hubble images of galaxies 23 billion light years away is pretty darn humbling.

david gibson
09-01-2010, 08:24 AM
I'm sorry...I tried to follow that but I fail to see what geology and a supposed supercontinent have to do with the spontaneous creation of life.

How is there life withing the cells? Are you saying they are still alive? The cells cease all metabolic activity very quickly after death due to a lack of ATP provided to them through normal processes such as respiration.

the poiont i am trying to make is the extreme amounts of time it takes for things to evolve. even the rapid bursts of evolutionary changes took eons to occur.....

Leddyman
09-01-2010, 10:38 AM
Scientists have made short amino acid sequences in labs that have been self-replicating. I will grant you, we have no modern Dr. Frankenstein, but you asked for small steps, and creating a basic prion that is self-replicating is indeed a small step in the life chain of development. Just like throughout history, science will replace religion in terms of explaning the natural world. I doubt we well EVER answer the ultimate questions of the origins of the universe, but seeing Hubble images of galaxies 23 billion light years away is pretty darn humbling.

The amino acid chains of which you speak were not self replicating. They spontaneously formed under a strictly governed set of conditions in a lab. Proving that intelligent beings controlling the conditions and applying energy in controlled circumstances can get amino acids to form. They immediately deteriorate into component molecules in the environment.

Self replicating: able to produce copies of themselves. Not in a million years. Nice try though.

The experiment proved this. It takes intelligent guidance and controlled environment for amino acids to form from chemicals in the environment.

Also that is not an intermediate step between living organisms and non-living matter. The amino acids were non-living matter created in a laboratory. But i could see how if you were desperate for some confirmation of your fantasy you might cling to that as proof.

Point #2. Science doesn't explain anything. Science describes the world as we observe it. Science describes the gravitational force with an equation but it can never explain why it works or why it doesn't have a different value. Also science predicts things based on observed conditions in the past.

So what testable prediction comes from the psuedo science of evolution? None?

Keith Farmer
09-01-2010, 10:39 AM
Scientists have made short amino acid sequences in labs that have been self-replicating.



That is irrelevent to the textbook statements that "chemicals assembled themselves".

Look carefully at your assertion..."scientists have made...". Origin in the experimentations you cite is not the self-creation of life by lifeless chemicals as textbooks claim, rather it is dependent on a mind that is rational, logical, and that operates in a universe that is in uniformity. In other words, a universe that we know about from the bible...not from evolutionism.

What scientists are observing in experiments as referenced is Biogenesis. The law of biogenesis states simply that life always comes from life. This is what observational science tells us: organisms reproduce other organisms after their own kind.

The concept of evolution violates the law of biogenesis. Evolutionists believe and teach that life spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals (at the point of origin at least). As seen above, however, this belief/assertion is inconsistent with the law of biogenesis. Science confirms the Bible.




Just like throughout history, science will replace religion in terms of explaning the natural world.


The first part of your assertion is an arbitrary question begging statement.

The second part of your assertion is the fallacy of reification: science is not a force whereby it can cause or direct anything. Science is a tool that scientists use to perform functions that totally depend on the uniformity of nature to be possible. Evolutionism has no uniformity in its tenets...only randomness.


Religion, likewise, is not a causal agent. Religious people may direct things in a certain direction but religion is a concept/practice.

God, on the other hand, is the First Cause in terms of origins.




Terry, I posted my statement while you were posting yours. I'll leave mine as well since it supports yours.



.

Leddyman
09-01-2010, 10:40 AM
the poiont i am trying to make is the extreme amounts of time it takes for things to evolve. even the rapid bursts of evolutionary changes took eons to occur.....

That is a faith based statement. The Cambrian Explosion did not take eons. It also did not last long enough to account for the extreme genetic diversity of the fossil record.

Leddyman
09-01-2010, 10:44 AM
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?[QUOTE

[QUOTE ] I Thes.5 :21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.


My book says to prove him. He must be proveable

Pete

Hey Pete,
In king James English to prove means to test or try out. The language has changed. So what he is saying is test yourself. This is an internal matter and can never constitute proof of the existence of God except to you yourself.

Keith Farmer
09-01-2010, 11:03 AM
In terms of the "life experiments"...Jonathan Wells, a developmental biologist, writes:


So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated. Yet the Miller-Urey experiment continues to be used as an icon of evolution, because nothing better has turned up. Instead of being told the truth, we are given the misleading impression that scientists have empirically demonstrated the first step in the origin of life.



In terms of "the poiont i am trying to make is the extreme amounts of time it takes for things to evolve...." Nobel prize-winning scientist George Wald once wrote:


However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once. . . . Time is the hero of the plot. . . . Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs miracles.






.

Roger Perry
09-01-2010, 12:27 PM
I watched a very interesting program on evolution on the PBS channel last night. It showed how humans evolved to walk upright. The remains of "Lucy" were found to be 3.2 million years old. Her upper body was ape like and from the waist down human like. When the remains were carbon dated it is hard to believe mankind has been on the planet for only 6,000 years.

http://nhscience.lonestar.edu/biol/evolve.htm

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

YardleyLabs
09-01-2010, 12:52 PM
I watched a very interesting program on evolution on the PBS channel last night. It showed how humans evolved to walk upright. The remains of "Lucy" were found to be 3.2 million years old. Her upper body was ape like and from the waist down human like. When the remains were carbon dated it is hard to believe mankind has been on the planet for only 6,000 years.

http://nhscience.lonestar.edu/biol/evolve.htm

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm
Roger,
You must know that you are simply confused by the antics of charlatans using the appearance of science to further their secular progressive agenda. As is clearly stated at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible , there is only one way to interpret so called scientific data:

When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word.
Notions of objectivity cannot be allowed to interfere with the Truth.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Roger Perry
09-01-2010, 01:00 PM
I believe this is the actual NOVA program that I watched last night.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human-part-1.html

david gibson
09-01-2010, 01:02 PM
That is a faith based statement. The Cambrian Explosion did not take eons. It also did not last long enough to account for the extreme genetic diversity of the fossil record.

i use eon to denote an indefinite long period of time - the vernacular definition for laypeople. the cambrian explosion lasted 5 to 15 million years, a looooooooong time. many would call that eons. and of course it did not last long enough to account for the extreme diversity of the fossil record - because the fossil record covers far more geologic time than just the cambrian.....it is generally thought that fossils at the youngest are around 10,000 years , and since the cambrian ended about 490 million years ago then the fossil record has some 490 million years since then to account for diversity you speak of.

and there are also some fossilized stromatolites from the precambrian.

plenty of time for the diversity my friend.

road kill
09-01-2010, 01:08 PM
Roger,
You must know that you are simply confused by the antics of charlatans using the appearance of science to further their secular progressive agenda. As is clearly stated at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible , there is only one way to interpret so called scientific data:

When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word.
Notions of objectivity cannot be allowed to interfere with the Truth.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Excuse me, I just want to make sure of something.
Did you just use Rogers name and objectivity in the same post??



Please.......I just spit my soda through my nose.......:D



RK

Roger Perry
09-01-2010, 01:30 PM
Excuse me, I just want to make sure of something.
Did you just use Rogers name and objectivity in the same post??



Please.......I just spit my soda through my nose.......:D



RK

I believe I used the words fair and balanced in conjunction with you yesterday.

road kill
09-01-2010, 01:33 PM
I believe I used the words fair and balanced in conjunction with you yesterday.

I missed that, but I'm sure you don't beleive that.

I am not in the least bit ashamed to claim to be a conservative.8-)

Ohhh, I found it, you mean the sarcastic comment where you misspelled Fox news to embellish you week talking point??

I stand by my comment, there is nothing whatsoever about you that anyone could construe as "objective."



RK

david gibson
09-01-2010, 01:41 PM
I believe I used the words fair and balanced in conjunction with you yesterday.

probably the most accurate thing you have ever said on here, so yes, that is noteworthy!

dnf777
09-01-2010, 02:07 PM
The amino acid chains of which you speak were not self replicating. They spontaneously formed under a strictly governed set of conditions in a lab. Proving that intelligent beings controlling the conditions and applying energy in controlled circumstances can get amino acids to form. They immediately deteriorate into component molecules in the environment.

Self replicating: able to produce copies of themselves. Not in a million years. Nice try though.

The experiment proved this. It takes intelligent guidance and controlled environment for amino acids to form from chemicals in the environment.

Also that is not an intermediate step between living organisms and non-living matter. The amino acids were non-living matter created in a laboratory. But i could see how if you were desperate for some confirmation of your fantasy you might cling to that as proof.

Point #2. Science doesn't explain anything. Science describes the world as we observe it. Science describes the gravitational force with an equation but it can never explain why it works or why it doesn't have a different value. Also science predicts things based on observed conditions in the past.

So what testable prediction comes from the psuedo science of evolution? None?

Uh, stop reading your thoughts into others' words. I never said they created life. That was my reference to Dr. Frankenstein, admitting that. What has been created is microstrands of self-replicating mRNA. Yes, it is self-replicating, able to assemble order from a mish-mash of chemicals under conditions that simulate early earth environments.

Self-replicating RNA and prions are very primitive forms of self-sustaining "life" if you will. You cannot comprehend the time scale of evolution, as Gibson pointed out. To get from self-organizing molecules, to simple organelles alone may take millions of years. But remember, there are a thousand millions in one billion. To go from prokayrotic to eukaryotic organisms could take millions more. I doubt you'll ever understand with the religious blinders on, though. But feel free to believe whatever you want to. I'm sure it will serve you well.

Roger Perry
09-01-2010, 02:18 PM
probably the most accurate thing you have ever said on here, so yes, that is noteworthy!

Actually it was as fair and balanced as faux news so yes it was the most accurate thing I have ever said on here.

david gibson
09-01-2010, 02:28 PM
Actually it was as fair and balanced as faux news so yes it was the most accurate thing I have ever said on here.

which cant be said of comedy channel and cnn and msnbc and the DBM so yup - you are correct!!

Leddyman
09-01-2010, 10:40 PM
Uh, stop reading your thoughts into others' words. I never said they created life. That was my reference to Dr. Frankenstein, admitting that. What has been created is microstrands of self-replicating mRNA. Yes, it is self-replicating, able to assemble order from a mish-mash of chemicals under conditions that simulate early earth environments.

Self-replicating RNA and prions are very primitive forms of self-sustaining "life" if you will. You cannot comprehend the time scale of evolution, as Gibson pointed out. To get from self-organizing molecules, to simple organelles alone may take millions of years. But remember, there are a thousand millions in one billion. To go from prokayrotic to eukaryotic organisms could take millions more. I doubt you'll ever understand with the religious blinders on, though. But feel free to believe whatever you want to. I'm sure it will serve you well.


Self replicating means reproducing itslef. I can comprehend the time scal as well as you can and it doesn't matter how long you've got impossible remains impossible. We cite scientific evidence against spontaneous generation of living organisms and your answer is give it time. Time is your God.

Here, I'll let Dr. Fazale ("Fuz") Rana explain it to you.

Minimally, four things are required to substantiate this scenario:

* reasonable prebiotic chemical routes that will generate the building blocks (nucleobases, ribose, and phosphate) of RNA;
* reasonable prebiotic routes that will assemble RNA from its building blocks into molecular chains long enough to form ribozymes;
* demonstration that ribozymes possess a range of catalytic activities necessary to sustain an RNA-based biochemistry;
* and production of an RNA self-replicator.

To date, biochemists have identified reactions in the laboratory that can yield RNA building blocks and lead to the assembly of RNA molecules. Even though no one has succeeded in generating a genuine self-replicating RNA molecule, researchers have been able to produce a remarkable number of ribozymes using a process called in vitro evolution.

Yet, as Hugh Ross and I describe in Origins of Life, when the details of this work are carefully considered, it becomes evident that these reactions could have never taken place on early Earth. The laboratory experiments that yielded the RNA building blocks and assembled them into RNA molecules were all conducted under carefully-controlled, pristine conditions designed to maximize the success of the experiment rather than rigorously assess the likelihood that a chemical process could operate on the turbulent early Earth. Typically, these laboratory reactions involve strict control over temperature, pH, and concentration and ratio of reactants. Scientists select energy sources and conditions that promote prebiotic reactions, but avoid destruction of chemical products once they formunrealistic conditions for primordial Earth.

Usually, prebiotic reactions are stopped before chemical breakdown occurs. Chemists know that once a synthesis is completed if the products are not removed from the reaction they will eventually be destroyed. Researchers are often careful to exclude materials from prebiotic simulations that would have occurred on early Earth but would interfere and disrupt the reactions that take place in the lab. In other words, origin-of-life researchers have achieved faux success by "stacking the deck" in their favor.

The "evolution" of RNA molecules in the laboratory raises similar concerns. This process is directed and requires extensive worker intervention, and its success hinges on careful experiment design. It stretches the bounds of credulity to think that this process, or one like it, could ever have occurred on early Earth.

These problems are so severe that the late Leslie Orgel actually commented that "it would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the early Earth."

In other words, the chief problem with the RNA world scenario is what appears to be the unwarranted involvement of scientists to get the chemistry and biochemistry to work.

dnf777
09-02-2010, 06:05 AM
Leddy,
That was good stuff, and interesting, but slightly outdated.
Google self-replicating RNA, and you will see many up to date reports of just that.
I'm not familiar with Dr. Rana, but (not to impugn) that article may be out of date. Even one year ago is a totally different story.

take care,
dave

YardleyLabs
09-02-2010, 06:32 AM
I am not aware of self replicating RNA having been formed in a Lab using only primordial components yet. This article provides a description of one experiment that seems to be on the right track. However, if all of faith hinges on the inability of scientists to create life out of primordial "soup", then I suspect that faith will come to a crushing end soon.:rolleyes:

A self-assembling molecule synthesized in a laboratory may resemble the earliest form of information-carrying biological material, a transitional stage between lifeless chemicals and the complex genetic architectures of life.

Called tPNA, short for thioester peptide nucleic acids, the molecules spontaneously mimic the shape of DNA and RNA when mixed together. Left on their own, they gather in shape-shifting strands that morph into stable configurations.

The molecules haven’t yet achieved self-replication, the ultimate benchmark of life, but they hint at it. Best of all, their activities require no enzymes — molecules that facilitate chemical reactions, but didn’t yet exist in the primordial world modeled by scientists seeking insight into life’s murky origins.
“There have been many test tube experiments of evolving chemical sequences, but there hasn’t been a system that on its own can form under enzyme-free conditions,” said Reza Ghadiri, a Scripps Research Institute biochemist. “We satisfy some of the requirements of the long-term goal of having a purely chemical system that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.”

Among the co-authors of the paper describing tPNA, published Thursday in Science, is the late Leslie Orgel (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/us/05orgel.html), a pioneering biochemist who hypothesized that DNA evolved from RNA, a simple information-carrying molecule that today forms the genomes of viruses and facilitates protein manufacture in organismal cells.

The so-called RNA world hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis) is widely accepted among scientists, but requires several critical steps that have been satisfactorily explained in a laboratory only recently, if at all. One such step is the formation of RNA’s chemical precursors. Another step involves their accumulation into RNA, which despite its relative simplicity, has resisted the attempts of scientists to synthesize it in primordial conditions.
A experiment published several weeks ago in Nature, in which a cycle of evaporation and condensation distilled a mix of primordial chemicals into several key RNA ingredients (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/), has provided a plausible early answer to the problem of precursor formation. And the tPNA molecule in the current study may illuminate, at least in principle, how RNA might have emerged from these ingredients: in multiple stages, through a process of evolution.


Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/tpna/#ixzz0yMlGDzZ4


The article referenced concerning "key RNA components reads, in part:


Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.
“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.
At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.
According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”
Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”
Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.
“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”


Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/#ixzz0yMpMnlzI



Note the sentence: "Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites." If links can be formed between these pre-cursors and the subsequent evolution of life, then the existence of similar precursors in meteorites and interstellar dust would increase the odds that life not only formed through evolution, but is likely to have done so repeatedly across the universe.

However, there is also no question but that this aspect of the research remains in its infancy. These experiments are efforts to identify potential ways that life might have first emerged from the primordial pool. As such mechanisms are identified, it will remain necessary to evaluate how realistic those hypotheses may be. That is how science works: small steps repeatedly challenged until the strongest candidate ideas can be identified that allow further steps to be taken. Did the dog find the bird because the bird happened to fall where the dog ran, or because the dog saw the fall and remembered where it was? Te only way to tell is to "proof" the training repeatedly.;-)

dnf777
09-02-2010, 08:28 AM
Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biology and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. gjoyce@scripps.edu

Abstract
A long-standing research goal has been to develop a self-sustained chemical system that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. The notion of primitive RNA-based life suggests that this goal might be achieved by constructing an RNA enzyme that catalyzes the replication of RNA molecules, including the RNA enzyme itself. This reaction was demonstrated recently in a cross-catalytic system involving two RNA enzymes that catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four component substrates. The cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification at a constant temperature in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of approximately 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Small populations of cross-replicating RNA enzymes can be made to compete for limited resources within a common environment. The molecules reproduce with high fidelity but occasionally give rise to recombinants that also can replicate. Over the course of many "generations" of selective amplification, novel variants arise and grow to dominate the population based on their relative fitness under the chosen reaction conditions. This is the first example, outside of biology, of evolutionary adaptation in a molecular genetic system.

PMID: 19667013 [PubMed - in process]PMCID: PMC2891321Free PMC Article

dnf777
09-02-2010, 10:00 AM
When man can form( yatzar ) or fashion a toad out of the elements of the earth and give it soul life (nephish) breathing,,then they'll have my attention.

Using prinortial ooze which is already alive ,, is not all that great of an accomplishment.

Pete

Its all about baby steps.....

Finding bread mold inhibits bacterial growth on your sandwich is not all that great of an accomplishment either....

ducknwork
09-02-2010, 11:47 AM
Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biology and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. gjoyce@scripps.edu

Abstract
A long-standing research goal has been to develop a self-sustained chemical system that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. The notion of primitive RNA-based life suggests that this goal might be achieved by constructing an RNA enzyme that catalyzes the replication of RNA molecules, including the RNA enzyme itself. This reaction was demonstrated recently in a cross-catalytic system involving two RNA enzymes that catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four component substrates. The cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification at a constant temperature in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of approximately 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Small populations of cross-replicating RNA enzymes can be made to compete for limited resources within a common environment. The molecules reproduce with high fidelity but occasionally give rise to recombinants that also can replicate. Over the course of many "generations" of selective amplification, novel variants arise and grow to dominate the population based on their relative fitness under the chosen reaction conditions. This is the first example, outside of biology, of evolutionary adaptation in a molecular genetic system.

PMID: 19667013 [PubMed - in process]PMCID: PMC2891321Free PMC Article

So, you're saying that there was an being of higher intelligence that started the chemical reaction described above? So what being of higher intelligence started the chemical reaction that 'eons' later became man?

dnf777
09-02-2010, 01:04 PM
So, you're saying that there was an being of higher intelligence that started the chemical reaction described above? So what being of higher intelligence started the chemical reaction that 'eons' later became man?


And how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?






The world may never know...........

YardleyLabs
09-02-2010, 04:34 PM
When man can form( yatzar ) or fashion a toad out of the elements of the earth and give it soul life (nephish) breathing,,then they'll have my attention.

Using prinortial ooze which is already alive ,, is not all that great of an accomplishment.

Pete
The "primordial ooze" that I mentioned does not contain any organic compounds or living materials. It contains water and a mixture of chemicals close to what scientists believe may have existed in the early stages of the earth. similarly, the atmosphere, lighting, radiation levels, and temperatures are similar to those that are believed to have existed at that time. Experiments have focused on determining what types of chemical compounds form spontaneously with environmental variations that would have occurred naturally. In the experiment cited, the experiment resulted in the spontaneous creation of one of what is viewed as a key building block, or precursor for life.

Franco
09-02-2010, 05:17 PM
Here is an interesting read from Dr Stephen Hawking, Theoretical Physics.

Life In The Universe

http://hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65

Though Dr Hawking and I disagree of the age of the universe; he says it is 15 billion years old, I say it has always been here. Who going to argue over couple of billion years, not me.

Leddyman
09-02-2010, 05:20 PM
Leddy,
That was good stuff, and interesting, but slightly outdated.
Google self-replicating RNA, and you will see many up to date reports of just that.
I'm not familiar with Dr. Rana, but (not to impugn) that article may be out of date. Even one year ago is a totally different story.

take care,
dave

I did google it. O.K. This is what you get when you google it.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html


RNA is the close cousin to DNA. More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA. RNA can't run a life form on its own, but 4 billion years ago it might have been on the verge of creating life, just needing some chemical fix to make the leap. In today's world, RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles, which include coding for proteins.

I added the italics. Do you not hear the wishful speculative tone of this? Since when is that scientific? Maybe! We hope!


Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory.


Specifically they synthesized the RNA I don't recall any reports of synthesized RNA being in any "early primordial soup". It replicates if fed a steady diet of the perfect ingredients necessary to do so and if kept in carefully controlled environment (and that ain't no "early primordial soup" baby, it ain't even Campbell's soup)

So you see, my reference was up to date. It isn't a true self replicating RNA because it can't do it without a pile O' help. Are you suggesting someone was around to help in the "Early primordial soup"?

Wonder how closely this "Synthesized" RNA resembles the real thing?

They aren't as close as they would have you believe.

david gibson
09-02-2010, 05:21 PM
And how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?






The world may never know...........

that would be the analogy to come to your mind....

lollipop lollipop barney frank rush regards.... ;-)