Quite a fallacious and inaccurately loaded statement there, photon.
Howso? Evolution does have mountains of evidence, 150 years worth, spanning across multiple independent disciplines with many lines of evidence.
Intelligent Design doesn't have any of that. It was determined not to be scientific by a court of law, and one of it's primary proponents said that under his definition where ID is science, astrology is also science.
I'm only aware of one paper published in a respectable scientific journal by an ID proponent, and the link to ID was thin at best.
ID could be scientific if its proponents actually came up with some science, but to this point they haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
I find it amazing that the most brilliant minds today can't really duplicate what chance, chaos, coincidence and randomness managed to create out of nothingness.
I thought we were talking about evolution? Evolution explains the diversity of life, not something out of nothing.
Not to mention that is a straw man and a red herring. A straw man because science doesn't say chance, chaos, coincidence, and randomness created everything out of nothing, and a red herring because being able to duplicate something isn't necessary in order to evaluate the validity of a claim; you can't duplicate God, the flood, a star, an earthquake, or past events but you can still study them.
You're putting a case together for an argument I didn't make. I'm not expecting solutions to mankinds deepest questions. All I pointed out is that mishap and chance somehow managed to create everything from absolute nothingness while intelligent life is having difficulty unraveling it using already available building material.
Science has already unravelled the genetic code and the conditions for abiogenesis have been throughly modelled and laboratory tested in many different possible ways. Evolution is a theory as much as the theory of relativity is a theory. All scientific evidence so far has substantiated it. Evolution is not a process of mishap and chance. It is not a process of entropy. It is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms due to the survivability of traits under different environmental pressures. It is a process that operates on a timescale many people seem to have difficulties conceptualizing.
The universe did not arise from nothingness. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Even the Catholic Church officially promotes the theory of the Big Bang.
If you want to believe that an intelligent designer utilized those processes in creation as a integral part of your faith, that is your right to that belief. Others however, find that the idea to be just as preposterous as you feel their position to be.
Even if intelligent design is your position, what makes your specific faith the correct one to ascribe to the designer other than the fact that it was the faith that you were raised in or converted to?
I look at the universe and I see something that is so amazing that I find that it actually takes a complete lack of imagination and the lack of the ability to broaden your mind to see the bigger picture for you to believe absolutely in the simplest possible solution. One without any proof whatsoever - that it was simply made that way by a creator who was just always there and is all-powerful.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 05-18-2011 at 11:06 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
I wish calgaryborn would enter back into this thread and back up his ridiculous statement.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
Talk about strawman arguments, photon. Right after you disparage someone for using them no less.
See, when I say someone's used a fallacy, I actually spell it out. Where have I used a strawman?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
Archeological evidence supports everything that has been recorded in the Bible. Times. Dates. Events. Using your scientific approach, it's up to you to prove to me that the Bible doesn't actually, right?
Generally whoever makes the positive claim has the burden of proof, since proving a negative can be difficult.
But I would disagree, there are many things claimed in the Bible that have no evidence archeologically, and even contrary evidence.
A 6000 year old earth and a global flood being two of the biggest. Though I realize not every Christian believes the earth is young or that the flood was global (or wasn't mythical in nature). Just like a great many Christians don't see the Bible as accurate archeologically.
Not to mention that this in itself is fallacious, because even if the Bible was 100% accurate archeologically, does not mean that it is accurate in what it says about God. I can write a book that is 100% accurate about Canada today, but if I then start talking about the aliens running things that doesn't make that part valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
And your ignorance of the Bible is evident with comments such as "Bible itself has contradicting points of view on the afterlife from OT to NT."
There's many scholarly works on how the Jews' views of the afterlife changed over time and how it's reflected in the OT writings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
Normally I take a much more diplomatic approach to debates, but it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't even know the basics of what they're trying to disprove in the first place.
What am I trying to disprove? You made a statement about evolution and intelligent design, I replied to that. Evolution and Christianity do not have to be at odds, anymore than gravity and Christianity have to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
Edit: And before you quote two scriptures in the OT and NT, I suggest you read the context and do the research, so you don't look foolish for trying to follow up on your false assertion.
You can tone down the hostility, I always back up what I say with research.
I used to preach this stuff from the pulpit, so it's not like I'm looking at it as an outsider.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
There are so many relevant quotes from Thomas Jefferson I'm struggling to pick only one.
Better yet:
1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
A while back someone posted a graph of "inaccuracies" of the bible. If someone took to the time to research them, 95% would be explained and eliminated within minutes. But it's easier to just post an overwhelming graph with hundreds of scriptures and present that as evidence without looking it over oneself, isn't it?
I studied apologetics and hermeneutics in my younger life and I came away completely unable to defend the bible any longer as anything more than a man-made document and the faith that it espouses to be nonsensical and illogical to my own convictions. That is my own conclusion. You are entitled to your own if you strongly believe that it is the inspired work of god as transmitted by man. Those are two positions that cannot be reconciled unless one side concedes.
It would be nice to have a theological discussion without the tension and belligerence. Your faith should stand for itself. There is no need to attack other posters on an internet forum or for Kirk Cameron to attack Stephen Hawking. Atheists aren't attacking religion, they are simply pointing out why it makes no rational sense to them. If Christians find that offensive, is it due to any lingering doubts? Is their own faith not strong enough?
Ultimately, Christianity cannot be defended by logic and science because those arguments will fail. They exist in separate domains. It boils down to faith.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
I apologize I was wrong. I didn't grab it from what Cameron said though I took it from the author of the article when the author stated: "Stephen Hawking gave an interview in which he declared that in his wholly scientific view Heaven doesn't exist..."
No worries , always important to go to the source, and even then question it, the media's ability to get a quote or a fact straight, especially anywhere near science, is vanishingly small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames
Okay so you believe the Bible isn't the word of God. That's your belief, I believe it is. If you or someone else believed in the existence of Hogwarts than so be it. I don't have a reason to try to force them to prove it.
And that's fine, I however think understanding the reason for a belief is more important than the belief itself.
It was me trying to find out why I believed what I did that led me to the conclusions I have now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames
Disagreeing is one thing but saying "but the bible doesn't count" is taking away the ability to use bible verses as part of any discussion, which really in essence is taking the bible away from me.
I see what you mean, but look at it from the other side. If we were discussing something and I was quoting to you from the Book of Mormon, you wouldn't put any weight in what I was quoting right? Because you wouldn't see it as a valid source of knowledge/wisdom/etc.
Using the Bible (or the Qua-ran or whatever) as evidence to support made in that book is circular reasoning. If that satisfies you that's fine, but others may have higher standards of evidence.
1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
And thusly, men were subjugated, conquered, enslaved, and disenfranchised for 2000 years by a successions of emperors, popes, sultans, kings, lords, and tyrants who justified their terrestrial right to rule via the temporal power of scripture.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
Atheists aren't attacking religion, they are simply pointing out why it makes no rational sense to them.
To be fair, some atheists do hold the position that religion is a net harm to humanity. But not all atheists, some just talk about the specific harms of specific views that some religious people hold (anti-science, anti-equality, etc).
I'm really sick of seeing Dawkins getting posted in every thread. The only thing I like about him is that his wife was both in and was married to Doctor Who (Tom Baker) and later introduced to Dawkins by Douglas Adams.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
I'm really sick of seeing Dawkins getting posted in every thread. The only thing I like about him is that his wife was both in and was married to Doctor Who (Tom Baker) and later introduced to Dawkins by Douglas Adams.
Well I am sick of you liking things for weird and bizarre reasons, lose-lose my friend.
One day modern religions will be ancient mythologies akin to Thor, Zeus, Hercules or The Minotaur. There's no point even arguing about religion with theists, there is absolutely no evidence you could provide including logic that they will listen to with an objective mind.
There's no point even arguing about religion with theists, there is absolutely no evidence you could provide including logic that they will listen to with an objective mind.
I disagree, if this were true then there would be no de-conversions.
I think it's extremely difficult and the way the mind works works against it, and requires a specific kind of thought process, but it is possible.
And that's fine, I however think understanding the reason for a belief is more important than the belief itself.
It was me trying to find out why I believed what I did that led me to the conclusions I have now.
See that's the thing, the reason I believe what I believe is largely based upon the bible. I'm satisfied to my standard that the bible is God's word. I've had God work in my life and in others around me to again satisfy me that God is real. It's not something I can produce hard evidence to satisfy you or anyone else nor is that what I'm called to do. I present the word of God as best I can and I really leave it up to God to do the persuasion part because he's far better at it that I am.
I disagree, if this were true then there would be no de-conversions.
I think it's extremely difficult and the way the mind works works against it, and requires a specific kind of thought process, but it is possible.
The majority of deconversions are from education in an objective setting, not debate. In my University experience (5 years) I remember very few strong theists that were involved in a natural science program, education slowly and naturally allows people to see religion for what it is, mass delusion.
, always important to go to the source, and even then question it, the media's ability to get a quote or a fact straight, especially anywhere near science, is vanishingly small.
