Hey All!

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hey All!

 I am a Christian in Florida and am interested in understanding more on the most current contexts of Atheism. I believe in Design Theory and not evolution (due to the lack of fossil records[stasis, sudden appearance], irreducible complexity, causation, Biogenesis, microevolution's inability to support macroevolution, the hundreds and thousands of scientists who don't hold to evolution, genetic entropy, degenerate mutations, etc.. and so on) I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and it is through this revelation that God shows his unfailing grace and truth(the highest virtue is the laying down of one's life for another, I believe) I also believe that Atheism is a logical fallacy and that it is Atheism that grasps a stronger faith than theism (solely on the grounds of epistemological and ontological reductionism), also I have to say that the arguments that Christians are ignorant, knave, and blind are fossilized in higher academic debates, and claims of Christ not existing have been refuted by almost all historians and scholars including atheists as well. So please make sure your responses and rebuttals are well thought out and researched, no need talking about that which is not argued. I would love to hear from all! I will respect and tolerate any and all responses. I know this is not the first time a Christian has joined your forums, I will respect your grounds and your terms. Thanks!  -Randy


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Since this is just your

Since this is just your intro il let all the claims slide, Welcome!


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I welcome you to the forums

I welcome you to the forums in all honesty. But I would like to point out that if you're looking for genuine discussion and debate with us atheists, I'll make a few respectful suggestions. Start a thread either in "atheists vs theists" or "killing them with kindness" whichever you feel is fitting. Try to start with a specific topic for coherency's sake. For example, I notice you used about every buzz word in modern theology, and misused the term "biogenesis" when I believe you meant "abiogenesis." Nobody will or should take somebody seriously if they don't know about the subject they're against. For example, be prepared for atheists to know scripture front to back. If I were going to discuss abiogenesis with someone, I'd expect, at the very least, the person understand the terminology and to have a basic understanding of the Miller Urey experiment and its derivatives. Would you debate religion with me if I had never read the Holy Bible? Probably not. You would dismiss me immediately.

I don't mean this in any derogatory fashion, nor as an accusation. It just gets too difficult to hold meaningful conversation when too many arguments are made. I do look forward to your perspective and hope we can have productive conversation!


Randy7j (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
intro

 Hey guys thanks for your response! My miss spell. abiogenesis. I am aware and understand the claims of the Miller-Urey expriement, but I will leave that to a different thread, maybe in "atheists vs theists".  Thanks again for your warm welcome!!!!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
All you have to do to

All you have to do to understand the absurdity of "complexity" as an argument is ask yourself would you buy this same argument if the salesman were not a Christian?

The reality is that it works opposite of how theists want to argue it.

Complexity is an emergent property, not a starting point.

AND even if the atheist were to concede this point which "complexity" or "designer" started all this?

Find me one believer in any god who does not think it leads to theirs and I will find you a lier.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Randy7j (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
all you have to do

 Hey Brian thanks for your response! 

First of all yes I would buy it if you understand it's depth. A lot of design scientists aren't even necessarily christians. Also, irreducible complexity is by definition a design inference. Explain DNA in a slow, random, unguided, mindless process of evolution. DNA needs life to exist and life needs DNA to live, DNA needs mRNA to make any progress. DNA's sloe purpose is INFORMATION that is the blueprint for your life. It in itself is irreducibly complex, and any regress of lesser abilities will cause full functional cease. The human DNA contains 3.5 billion letters of information. HOW DOES THAT EVOLE???? And that is assuming you have random proteins laying around. That is even a more difficult problem for you. A protein is made of about 300 hundred amino acids of which we have 20 in nature. They must be in precise order to allow the protein to fold into a functional structure and you also need all peptide bonds. It takes about 20,000 different proteins to make a complex cell and all of which must be THERE to function to begin with. Not a couple. ALL. This can not be done by slow unguided processes. 

 

Of course it leads to a designer. That's the point. If you 'a priori' has entrenched you so far in your evolutionary dogma then I can't help you. You can't put together a cell from chemical evolution. It won't happen if the INFORMATION is not there to build on. Let alone to all the right amino acids, which can't be produced in the early atmosphere. Remember they must be L amino acids. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote: Hey Brian

Randy7j wrote:

 Hey Brian thanks for your response! 

First of all yes I would buy it if you understand it's depth. A lot of design scientists aren't even necessarily christians. Also, irreducible complexity is by definition a design inference. Explain DNA in a slow, random, unguided, mindless process of evolution. DNA needs life to exist and life needs DNA to live, DNA needs mRNA to make any progress. DNA's sloe purpose is INFORMATION that is the blueprint for your life. It in itself is irreducibly complex, and any regress of lesser abilities will cause full functional cease. The human DNA contains 3.5 billion letters of information. HOW DOES THAT EVOLE???? And that is assuming you have random proteins laying around. That is even a more difficult problem for you. A protein is made of about 300 hundred amino acids of which we have 20 in nature. They must be in precise order to allow the protein to fold into a functional structure and you also need all peptide bonds. It takes about 20,000 different proteins to make a complex cell and all of which must be THERE to function to begin with. Not a couple. ALL. This can not be done by slow unguided processes. 

 

Of course it leads to a designer. That's the point. If you 'a priori' has entrenched you so far in your evolutionary dogma then I can't help you. You can't put together a cell from chemical evolution. It won't happen if the INFORMATION is not there to build on. Let alone to all the right amino acids, which can't be produced in the early atmosphere. Remember they must be L amino acids. 

Does design lead to a designer? Yes.

Do you have any evidence that said designer is the God of the Bible? No.

Is the universe designed? If it is, it has been designed very poorly.

Are you sure you want to attribute such a mess to your God?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote: I am a

Randy7j wrote:

 I am a Christian in Florida and am interested in understanding more on the most current contexts of Atheism. I believe in Design Theory and not evolution (due to the lack of fossil records[stasis, sudden appearance], irreducible complexity, causation, Biogenesis, microevolution's inability to support macroevolution, the hundreds and thousands of scientists who don't hold to evolution, genetic entropy, degenerate mutations, etc.. and so on) I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and it is through this revelation that God shows his unfailing grace and truth(the highest virtue is the laying down of one's life for another, I believe) I also believe that Atheism is a logical fallacy and that it is Atheism that grasps a stronger faith than theism (solely on the grounds of epistemological and ontological reductionism), also I have to say that the arguments that Christians are ignorant, knave, and blind are fossilized in higher academic debates, and claims of Christ not existing have been refuted by almost all historians and scholars including atheists as well. So please make sure your responses and rebuttals are well thought out and researched, no need talking about that which is not argued. I would love to hear from all! I will respect and tolerate any and all responses. I know this is not the first time a Christian has joined your forums, I will respect your grounds and your terms. Thanks!  -Randy

FIRST OFF, we do want you here and we are glad you didn't feel like you were going to get cooties from us, believe me, you wont.

Quote:
I am a Christian in Florida and am interested in understanding more on the most current contexts of Atheism. I believe in Design Theory and not evolution

You can start off by not calling atheism a "context". It is merely the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Quote:
  I believe in Design Theory and not evolution

Would you believe in "Design Theory" if a Muslim were pitching it to you?

How about trying these things for starters:

Consider complexity arising out of simplicity instead of the other way around. Consider complexity as an emergent property and not a prerequisite.

Consider that there is a "what" instead of a "who".

Look up infinite regress.

Look up the fallacy of Pascal's wager

Look up Bentrand Russell's teapot

I'd highly suggest you do those things if you haven't already, otherwise you are going to get creamed on this board.

AND ABOVE all else, if you do anything, understand that we can separate the claims from the person making the claim and don't take anything we say personally.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I will respect your

Quote:
I will respect your grounds and your terms. Thanks!  -Randy

The only people you are mandated to respect is the board owner and the admins  and the rules are actually quite simple and nowhere near as anal as other boards. Since I am not an admin or the board owner I cant advise you on how they will deal with you.

I think they would say as long as you follow the TOS you'll be ok.

My personal advise, since I cant speak for them and don't pretend to, would be to treat all of us as individuals because we are very diverse in our tactics and comfort levels here.

If you want to wade in the shallow end before getting into the "hot water" there is a "Kill Em With Kindness" section if you are not sure where to start.

I myself don't mind the verbal boxing ring, my debate style is "cut to the chase" "no holds barred. Others here like the library approach and will most certainly have more patience than I do with certain arguments.

I can say with all certainty that we do want you here, but don't think it is always going to be easy or that you will always hear nice things, or that you are here to preach or teach.

This site has had long term theists. One is a pagan and a couple are pantheists and another is a Christian, whom we can't seem to get through to, but they have all stuck it out and we are glad they have stuck around.

We debate here and sometimes it isn't pretty, but like I said, that doesn't mean we hate you. Just take it as, "you are full of it".

Thats all the advise I have, like I said, do not think I am speaking on behalf of the entire board. I am only speaking in general terms from my own perspective.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Right "design theory" is a

Right "design theory" is a joke, and you wouldn't buy it if it lead to Allah which means it is nothing but religious backpedaling.

If you know what an atom is then you cannot sell me the idea that a brain with no brain, no cerebellum, no neurons, that floats everywhere and nowhere at the same time, with magical super powers that is "all powerful" is real, whatever name you want to give it.

Do you really think that there is a magical puppeteer that has the power to manipulate all the atoms and quarks in the universe all at the same time?

Of course other religions are adapting your same approach because like you, they are running scared that science is shrinking the room for their invisible friend, like yours.

How about this?

How about a more realistic explanation instead of a needlessly complex one?

How about accepting that humans have always made gods up, and that yours is merely a currently popularly held belief?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If you can accept that Zues

If you can accept that Zues and Thor as claims didn't exist 1 billion years ago, and won't exist 1 billion years from now, what makes you or your claims so special? Jesus didn't exist as a claim 1 billion years ago because there were no humans around to claim he was magically popped out without TWO sets of DNA. Just as you rightfully accept that no one was around to make claims about Allah or 72 virgins 1 billion years ago.

Could it merely be your own human psychology causing you to merely want to pretend a god is real because the placebo is more comforting than the HARSH real reality of nature and the universe?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Randy7j (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brain

 hey man thanks for your response, and I appreciate your disclosure. I'll take your slogans like "your full of it" I really don't mind. It's the nature of the argument that we will carry our bias no matter what. A far as Bertrand Russel's Teapot, look up Ravi Zacharias response to that. As far as complexity coming from simplicity, my point is that the simple is far from simple. The simplest cell is more complex than anything man can construct. Pascal's wager is purely existential, I have found fulfillment and peace, also meaning, purpose, and HOPE. If I'm wrong, dust does not regret. If your wrong your danger is inexpressible. You like the cut to the chase. Then answer the problem of DNA. I might sound intolerant in my writing but I'm actually really enjoying being here, so thanks again! Also I do believe the God of the Universe has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ on the grounds of the immense authority the Bible has carried through the ringers and if you only here the side of the accusations please seek the rebuttals. The Bible carries tremendous historical accuracy. And as far as other religion's what can they offer and are they internally consistent or even coherent? Most lack any historical authority or even scholarly credibility. Take care man, I have a thread in science pertaining to Causality. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"design"Yea, gamma rays and

"design"

Yea, gamma rays and meteors are a blast. I am sure black holes care about our tiny dot and wouldn't dare gobble us up if we got too close.

When the sun finally expands and dies it certainly wont bake us like charcoal.

What a "design" Wow, that took such brains to come up with and all because Eve screwed us we get to enjoy this perfect "design". Wow, thanks dad. I enjoy all the violence, disease and war you so perfectly "designed". It is so fun.

Or it might be that there is no "design" and you merely have to force yourself to mix fiction with science in order to swallow it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The bible is a history book

The bible is a history book like Harry Potter is an instruction manual on flight.

I hate to burst your bubble but it takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote. I also hate to burst your bubble but human flesh does not survive rigor mortis dispite the "empty tomb" story.

We know George Washington existed but no one in their right mind goes around claiming he could fart a Lamborghini out of his ass.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Most lack any

Quote:
Most lack any historical authority or even scholarly credibility.

You don't know everything about the "history" of Islam, but yet you have no problem rejecting claims of Allah.

I don't know every part of my car engine nor could I build one from scratch, but I don't assume it works off of magical pixy dust, or that the history of cars started with magical elves.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
None of the "Gospels" were

None of the "Gospels" were contemporary and "Josephus" too was after the fact. None of the stories match, not to mention magic isn't real.

"poof" a ghost knocks up a girl without contributing sperm.

Ok.......

And I am having sex with Hedi  Clume right now.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Randy7j (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
brian

 Hey again brian.

If design lead to Allah then the Koran wouldn't contradict science as we understand our earth and universe, but it does. The bible has held the punches of science. What about the 12 creation accounts in Genesis being in line with what we know had to have happened in the early years of earth? Finite universe, continually expanding, springs of the ocean and currents regulating tempatures, water cycles, as well. They may read as simple verses but they have never contradicted science.

As far as Jesus not being around 1 billion years ago, why would he come then? There were no humans. Look up 'The Problem of Pain' by C.S. Lewis and read the Intro, he'll bring light the subject.

Who is running scared? I came here to talk with you. The 'a priori' entrenched dogma of your macro evolutionary theories is not held up under the weight of honest science. That is what I am interested in. Is it because you have no where to go otherwise and that all postulations are pretheoretical, presupposed assumptions that must then be extrapolated into science to create persuasive models and theories.

A puppeteer? If God created everything, is it then illogical to say he can manipulate it all at once? I think not. By the way if the massive power needed to create our universe, was in fact God's word then it is easy to think his commands can move or direct anything or everything. He's God. 

As far as my first remark to the bible and science, there are so many scientists, scholars, ancient historians, archaeologist's and paleontologist's that stand on the side of affirmation, that we must understand there is massive amounts of serious studies on both sides. 

got to run to work, Have a great night!!


Randy7j (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
wow

 hey I just saw your quick responses, and I have to go to work, I'll get back to you. Later!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You did not just bring up

You did not just bring up Genesis as having scientific credibility? No, never seen that one before.

Which part? The part where your claimed being treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light? Or the part where plants "poof" suddenly appear without the benefit of photosynthesis? And all this in 6 days? And of course this "all powerfull god needed to rest on the 7th day.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watch out spectators, he has

Watch out spectators, he has 12 versus from the "scientific" book of Genesis. But funny how no credible scientist would dare present the bible in a science class as science.

I have to go out too so it most likely wont be until tomorrow after work that I get to see these 12 gems he is so high on. I am sure it will wow me.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AND HE BROUGHT UP CS LUIS

AND HE BROUGHT UP CS LUIS TOO!

I think I'll be bringing my aspirin when I read his "arguments" tomorrow.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If God created

Quote:
If God created everything, is it then illogical to say he can manipulate it all at once? I think not

DUH! Which is not what I am claiming, you are.

I am simply calling "bullshit" on it because I think it is absurd to go around claiming that a brain with no brain or physical neurons could do such.

"God" IS "All powerful" because of your mundane imagination in wanting your super hero to be real. You bought it because it sounds nice, not because you have any evidence for it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


free_thinker
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-11-11
User is offlineOffline
"Bible Science"

As far as the "science" in genesis goes as adding credibility to the Bible, I was just curious how you explain away the "Scientific Miracles" of the Qur'an http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html - Wouldn't these "scientific facts" found in the Qur'an add just as much credibility to Islam's holy book as your "scientific facts" add to the Bible?  How do you refute these claims?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
free_thinker wrote:As far as

free_thinker wrote:

As far as the "science" in genesis goes as adding credibility to the Bible, I was just curious how you explain away the "Scientific Miracles" of the Qur'an http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html - Wouldn't these "scientific facts" found in the Qur'an add just as much credibility to Islam's holy book as your "scientific facts" add to the Bible?  How do you refute these claims?

He already mumbled the same standard "mine is real, the other guy's is not"  somewhere earlier. If you wan't to waste your time going back, it is there.

I'm waiting to get home from work to see these fantastic earth shattering "proofs" he claims he found in the 12 Genesis verses. THERE ARE 12 OF THEM MAN! How can you be wrong if you have 12?

He already gave the impression his argument was weak by saying, "They certainly don't conflict with science"

Yea, neither does saying, "The sky is blue" So that must mean I know WHY it is blue. And I am quite sure that because the Egyptians stated the obvious that the sun existed that must because of that observation, BACK THEN, they knew it was a big burning ball of gas.

And Zues must be real because the Greeks first used the word "atom".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


free_thinker
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-11-11
User is offlineOffline
If I can manage find some

If I can manage find some spare time I plan on looking through the translation of some ancient Greek/Egyptian creation myths.  Then I will find some amazing "scientific facts" in them, thus proving that they are infallible. 

Here is a tease from a Persian creation myth.

 

"As the creator rested, the first mountain grew"

This is clearly a reference to plate tectonics, it wasn't until just hundreds of years ago that science discovered that mountains actually grew a little each year - but somehow the Persians were able to know this thousands of years ago.

 

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Randy

 

Pleasure to meet you. Could you explain to me what you mean by a lack of fossils? Tens of millions of fossils have been found including at least 1200 dinosaur fossils and more than 20 distinct human ancestors, including many entire individuals. We're not talking about a pig's tooth here. Please point out to me the fossils that support creation - the sudden and recent appearance of all life at once. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Randy7j (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
reply

 Hey guys, I first want to say sorry for coming out here in your forums with a know it all attitude, with which I did not want to carry. None of us know it all and I really didn't come here to win arguments or even argue at that, but to gain and learn more from other perspectives and maybe offer mine. There is so much criteria here to be debated that we just can't have room for it. So briefly let me try to clarify what I was saying earlier about the Bible and the 12 creation accounts. I wasn't saying because it says things that science can confirm that it is true, but that when it says things about science, science hasn't proved it wrong. For example, when Genesis talks about the earth being covered in water, we know this was true in the first stages of early earth and that is followed by land formation and then the process to a transparent atmosphere. The accounts given in order in genesis are inline with what we study in science. Also the stages of life, that water species came first and then land species as in what we see from the fossil records. And it being a finite universe with continual expansion. I'm not saying "look" the bible says this, all I'm saying is we must give credit to this text that is over 3,500 years old and it got the steps in order. As for the reference to the Qur'an I looked at the site and have heard the debates before and can say that most of it is like this, Allah gave you speech, therefore Allah created the vocal cords. That is circular reasoning and it was written in the 600's. I'm not well read enough honestly to fully answer all the questions, but my lack of answer still doesn't mean there isn't one, there are multitudes of people more educated than me on this. 

On the note of 6 days, I'm not a young earth believer. The translations are not necessarily 24 hours. The word for day is used in the same context many times pertaining to periods. "poof' with out photosynthesis? do you know early life didn't have photosynthesis? God's day of rest is again pertaining to periods, in reference to Hebrews when he says man will enter his rest, meaning that period following. Oh and God doesn't claim the moon to be a producer of light but that if offers light. (through reflection)

"design" The nature of the gamma rays, meteors and black holes are wonders and part of his display to us of our futility. It makes me think that we are but a vapor to our Creator and if we weren't aware of that, what kind of blindness would we have? There are rational reasons for the so called random catastrophes in the universe and they are products of creation.

'rigor mortis' ? If he was raised from the grave, His body wasn't subject to decay. It is the Roman's that couldn't account for the empty grave, that's why the accounts are around, any disciple could say something, but if it wasn't true the political suppression would crumble it. 

and to the last reply from extremist -'recent', i don't believe in young earth. It is old, and there are lots of fossils. The problem with evolution if that's where the question " what fossils support creation?" leads is stasis and sudden appearance(not recent). The lack of solid transitional fossils that show small progressive changes is weak. Most fossils leave the fossil record almost the same as when they came. And the earliest claimed transitional for humans is 300,000 years before man showed up on the scene.  A quote from Palaeontologist David Raup  of the Field Museum of Natural History which houses the largest fossil collection in the world says this "we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky, and ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" Darwin himself knew this to be a problem because he couldn't quote one. That's not good if this is the truth. 

Guys I will be busy this weekend so I will do my best to keep up, but I just want to say thanks again for your critique. It makes me think! 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote:  On the

Randy7j wrote:

  

On the note of 6 days, I'm not a young earth believer. The translations are not necessarily 24 hours.

 

allow me to remind you that genesis 1 clearly says after each day's creation, "and evening and morning were the first day," etc., etc.  this seems like a standard 24-hour day to me.  if you don't think it means 24 hours then i call deductive reasoning, which is a no-no in biblical criticism, be it higher or lower.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote:The Bible

Randy7j wrote:

The Bible carries tremendous historical accuracy. And as far as other religion's what can they offer and are they internally consistent or even coherent? Most lack any historical authority or even scholarly credibility

...

As far as my first remark to the bible and science, there are so many scientists, scholars, ancient historians, archaeologist's and paleontologist's that stand on the side of affirmation, that we must understand there is massive amounts of serious studies on both sides. 

 

I don't agree with this. I think there is surprising lack of historical accuracy on the important CHECK OUT GOD things. For decades there have been agenda hungry Christian and Judaic archaeologist combing the Middle East trying to prove the Exodus actually occurred. All the plagues and parting of the Red Sea and 40 years wandering in the wilderness and nothing has been found outside the biblical account. No reference in Egyptian literature. The biblical account of Joshua at Jericho where the sun is stopped for a day, no one on the earth even noticed that? The ancients who worshipped the sun wouldn't take note? The Bible is a miss mash of stories and statistically some things would be accurate especially if you MUST find something,  but I give it no better than a flip of a coin. Isn't it odd that the God of the Bible chose to show himself to a primitive desert people? He avoided all the great empires of the world and chose to tell ignorant people. Have you notice the same is true of extraterrestial aliens who visit just the same? I know Christianity takes glee in that, but I would think God would prefer to converse with someone who is engaging rather than the rough equivalent of a dumb blond.  

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Internal consistency of the Bible?

Randy7j,

Internal consistency of the Bible? Well if you have hundreds of books being considered for the Bible and a group of liked-minded men deciding which ones to add and which ones to reject it will have some internal consistency, but not amazing so.

I expand more on this on my blog if you care to read it.

Divine Inspiration and perservation of the Bible

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi, Randy7j, welcome to the

Hi, Randy7j, welcome to the forum!

Randy7j wrote:
Explain DNA in a slow, random, unguided, mindless process of evolution. DNA needs life to exist and life needs DNA to live, DNA needs mRNA to make any progress.

I don't have much time right now, so I will make this short.

You are approaching this discussion with the assumption that someone could spoon-feed you the entire scientific fields of evolution and genetics in a few paragraphs. I know this probably sounds annoying, but I don't think you have any idea how complex and truly difficult these types of topics are. Science is not theology. You can't just discover the secrets of the universe by mentally masturbating in an armchair. Topics like these require decades and decades of meticulous observation and experimentation. No one, other than a biologist with a rain man memory, could really detail the entire process of the evolution of DNA without spending an enormous amount of time on research and linking to other websites. 

But, that aside, life certainly does NOT need DNA to exist. DNA is a convenient method of encoding genetic information, but there are currently, organisms that exist without DNA, and it's entirely conceivable, that had evolution originally progressed in a different direction, DNA would barely be utilized at all. Sure, there would be other ways other of storing information, but it wouldn't be DNA. 

Sorry, I have to go.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I have a bit more time

I have a bit more time now.

Randy7j wrote:
the hundreds and thousands of scientists who don't hold to evolution,
 

Lol, scientists with doctorates named Steve?

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Randy7j wrote:
Also, irreducible complexity is by definition a design inference.

I think irreducible complexity could be a weak inductive argument based on the premise that certain systems don't appear to be reducible upon analysis, but it is usually argued by people with little to no understanding of biology or even the scientific method, so it becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance or incredulity supported by factual errors. As you demonstrated quite beautifully, "HOW DOES THAT EVOLE????" and "And that is assuming you have random proteins laying around."

Virtually every system that Creationists have labeled as irreducible, including the famous bacterial flagellum, have already been explicitly reduced. And, of course, intuitively irreducible systems are not even actually irreducible in principle. This has been established among the scientific community for almost a century. All you have to do is 1) Add a new part. 2) Change the function or invoke a new function to make it necessary. 

Randy7j wrote:
That is even a more difficult problem for you. A protein is made of about 300 hundred amino acids of which we have 20 in nature. They must be in precise order to allow the protein to fold into a functional structure and you also need all peptide bonds. It takes about 20,000 different proteins to make a complex cell and all of which must be THERE to function to begin with. Not a couple. ALL. This can not be done by slow unguided processes.

Ah, and there's the strawman, as usual. 

I suppose it would be insufficient for me to emphasize, for the one millionth time, that a process can be guided and unintelligent.

It's not like a tornado creating a commercial airliner or winning the lottery repeatedly everyday for ten years, etc. ad nauseum, for the very reason that the process is not random. Natural selection is the very opposite of random. It's not an accident that organisms increased in complexity, that cheetahs run fast, or that whales breathe through blowholes. It's determined; it's selected for.   

And, again, you make an appeal to incredulity. Not only is there no good argument why it can't be done, it has already been shown, in most cases, how it can be done.

Randy7j wrote:
It won't happen if the INFORMATION is not there to build on.

When Creationists use the word 'information' in this context, it seems to be a completely scientifically inept term. I have never heard a Creationist define what they mean by 'information' in genetics. As far as I can tell, they don't know even what they mean. Either 'information' is genes that determine phenotypes, in which case we observe 'information' clearly changing and increasing from gene insertions, deletions, duplications, translocations, etc. or it's a vacuous, superfluous concept related to religion.   

Rand7j wrote:
Let alone to all the right amino acids, which can't be produced in the early atmosphere. Remember they must be L amino acids.

Um, what are you saying?

The scientific consensus is that left-handed amino acids clearly could form in the early atmosphere. Life uses left-handed amino acids. There are, however, some bacteria that use right-handed amino acids.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Welcome! Please do start

Welcome!

 

Please do start some threads about what you believe.  Don't get discouraged if the response is hostile and mocking, since the theories you bring up have been discussed many times here at great length.

Unless you have a very thick skin, I would suggest starting a bunch of threads under, 'Kill em' with Kindness'.

 

I hope you post a lot, and stick around for a while!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote:Pascal's wager

Randy7j wrote:
Pascal's wager is purely existential, I have found fulfillment and peace, also meaning, purpose, and HOPE. If I'm wrong, dust does not regret. If your wrong your danger is inexpressible.

Pascal's Wager? Lol.

How can you use the conclusions of a wager as an argument when the other person has not even agreed to the terms? 

Pascal's Wager rests on perhaps a dozen absurdum quod non sequiturs, a false dichotomy, and is an appeal to fear and pleasure. It is, possibly, the worst argument for God in existence. It's not even logically sound to conclude that you have even a slight advantage over me, that I would go to hell and you would go to heaven is nothing more than an unjustified assumption. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascal039s_wager_version_20

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Hey guys, I first want

Quote:
Hey guys, I first want to say sorry for coming out here in your forums with a know it all attitude, with which I did not want to carry. None of us know it all

No one thought that you had a "Know it all attitude", neither do we.

BUT in being here you have to expect us to criticize and even blaspheme your claims. We wont hate you. But if you do not prove your claims, we simply will not adapt them.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Pillowpants
atheist
Pillowpants's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2010-01-20
User is offlineOffline
 You sound like trouble.

 You sound like trouble.  Theists are welcome in our community but you seem to have come on strong and arrogant.  I will let Brain take care of all the claims you made as they are utterly rediculous and I'm sure he can do a better job than myself.

 

Brain says you don't have a know it all attitude but I wont lie.  I think you do.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pillowpants wrote: You

Pillowpants wrote:

 You sound like trouble.  Theists are welcome in our community but you seem to have come on strong and arrogant.  I will let Brain take care of all the claims you made as they are utterly rediculous and I'm sure he can do a better job than myself.

 

Brain says you don't have a know it all attitude but I wont lie.  I think you do.

Certainly he his "trouble", but for himself, not me. I don't see it as much "trouble" as much as I see him as a "chewtoy". I can't say I wont grab my bottle of aspirin. But, I look at this rehashed argument as merely a new sparing partner who merely thinks we haven't seen this before. It keeps me on my toes.

I hope it troubles him that he sees that we wont get wrapped up in the "Pay no attention to the myth behind the curtain" tactic, he uses that SHOULD trouble him.

I do think, like most, having seen this before, that he came here thinking he could "wow" us. He is in for a world of hurt (NOT LITERALLY, JUST DEBATE) just like the others in the past that have tried the same tactics.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Natural

butterbattle wrote:

Natural selection is the very opposite of random.

 

Welcome Randy.

 

I quoted butterbattle here because, based on your causality thread, you seem to think nothing is random.  Consequently, 'unguided processes' should not be in your vocabulary (as in there are things that cause tornadoes to form, just like there are people building a commercial jet).  I am taking 'guided' to mean caused.  As butterbattle pointed out, there are certain things that can happen and certain things that cannot.

 

I'd also like to add in the idea of 'life starting' as insufficient human labeling.  It seems unreasonable to think there was a point in time when *POOF* material clumped together could be classified as alive.  For example, when does something cease to be non-life and become alive?  Is mitochondria alive?  Are carbon strands?  Both are vital to a leaf's cell, but it is in the insufficiency of human labeling that causes discrepancies, not nature itself.  I'd go as far as to say that the term 'simple cell' is oxymoronic, because a cell is a very complex organization of molecules, which even themselves can be classified as complex (and for living organisms ARE classified as such).  To me it doesn't make sense to call a grouping of complex molecules simple.