Evolution Schmevolution
- Started
- Last post
- 164 Responses
- Nairn0
btw, re: your statement:
"Mindless, random chance does not, and never has, produced information."
Does this mean that you have a fuller appreciation of what we currently call Quantum mechanics than anyone else on our planet? Of Sub-space, extra dimensions, uncertainty princinples, string theory and ..well, *anything like* an appreciation of what the distinction between matter and energy actually is and where it comes from?
y'See, I'm an arrogant fucker - but I would never have that level of hubris to say something so distinctly.
- discipler0
First Kuz, in the interest of time, I would point you to a number of scholarly sources to answer your questions about the uniqueness of Christ and the Bible:
http://www.myfortress.org/manusc…
http://www.equip.org/free/CP0211…
http://www.myfortress.org/simong…As for your point about the "junk science" of religions. This is in contrast to the Bible's accurate science. Claims of bad science claims by the early church amount to urban legends. The claims were never made. Of course there was ignorance of scientific truth in all religions however.
- Scottizzle0
Yall gotta be kidding me! Stewart was fucking classic! Unless you are boring, or belive in fairy tales, you HAD to love it!
- Nairn0
I'm gong to regret asking, but can you point me in the direction of proofs for the following "fulfilled prophecy in the biblical record, the unique and uncanny reliability of the manuscript evidence".
Preferably, actual proof - not the quasi-logical inferences of the sincerely devout.
- Kuz0
The point I would make is that, when one combines: scientific discovery with the unique claims of Christ, the fulfilled prophecy in the biblical record, the unique and uncanny reliability of the manuscript evidence... it is not illogical or without merit to suggest that the designer (causal factor) looks suspiciously like the God of the Bible.
================what unique claims prophesised and scientifically proven? is that like when beardy muslims used to say to me "the koran said the earth goes around the sun 500 years before copernicus! see? scientif validation"
this'll be fun....
- discipler0
agreed, kuz. My point was that changed life (as ambiguous a term as that is) BY ITSELF does not build a cogent case for the Christian faith. It's the collective evidence and the unique claims of Christ PLUS the "heart transformation", that build the case.
Mal - I come here because believe it or not, I'm a designer. Albeit not a very good one. I constantly peruse the design related threads. It's only these types of topics (which i don't start) that compell me to post. :) Sorry if that offends you.
- discipler0
Nairn (and kuz)-
The point I would make is that, when one combines: scientific discovery with the unique claims of Christ, the fulfilled prophecy in the biblical record, the unique and uncanny reliability of the manuscript evidence... it is not illogical or without merit to suggest that the designer (causal factor) looks suspiciously like the God of the Bible.
And nairn, I would agree that world religions are little more than mythology or a crutch for the masses. My argument is that the Bible (and subsequent claims of Christ) stand in an altogether different category.
- Kuz0
discipler i know countless, fucking COUNTLESS of crazy kids who spent their lives on drugs and alcohol then found Islam and felt redeemed.
- Nairn0
"i enjoy how you atheists love to use derogatory expressions about those you disagree with all the time. ;)
discipler "Ah, 'the Christian' - the World's most sanctimonious creature.
- Mal0
Why do you come here Discipler?
You only ever preach and never participate in any other way surely your time would be better served conversing with like minded people. because you are wasting your time here.
- Kuz0
so discipler, to reiterate yet again,
"Christianity is faith not superstition, because sections of the bible are historically accurate"
but go on, have the last word by saying unrelated things ;)
- Nairn0
I will always concede the validity of the Ultimately Unknowable Root Cause possibly being 'a Creator'.
This being the case, Discipler -
you must accept the 'Statistical Fact' that
the God you believe in is so utterly different to what you believe you envisage as to make your stance not only ironic but laughable.God = a Maybe (but I hope not)
Religion, and the majority of belief = a morass of mythology to help the mindless through the day.
- mrdobolina0
"mrdobs - it is not true that world religions have countless proponents who tout changed hearts and lives thru a relationship. What you do have is people earnestly trying to perform appease angry gods and somehow gain their approval thru ritualism.
discipler
(Sep 14 05, 07:41)---
Are you saying that there aren't 'god-fearing' christians?
My point is, if you dont believe, you won't be let into the heavenly after-life. Is that not a scare tactic?
- discipler0
i enjoy how you atheists love to use derogatory expressions about those you disagree with all the time. ;)
- discipler0
hehe, fun AND productive, paraselene. ;)
shankz - Intelligent Design is simply the detection of purposed design in biological systems. It is neither a philosophical argument, nor a religious one.
mrdobs - it is not true that world religions have countless proponents who tout changed hearts and lives thru a relationship. What you do have is people earnestly trying to perform appease angry gods and somehow gain their approval thru ritualism.
- mrdobolina0
I enjoy how you christies love to play the victim all the time.
- discipler0
To point to a creator as the root cause, is a logical inference from science. Biological systems broken down to it's core constituents, yields information. Pure and simple, information (as coded in DNA). Mindless, random chance does not, and never has, produced information. Let alone the library volumes worth of information in a single strand of DNA.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... maybe it's a duck.
- paraselene0
Ridicule it as you see fit.
discipler
(Sep 14 05, 07:35)okay!
*points and laughs at bible
**throws ripe tomatonow isn't this more fun, kids?
- bk_shankz0
I think intelligent design is a valid philosophical theory as long as there is no Christian bias in its presentation.
- discipler0
kuz - The problem with your argument is that you hold the presupposition that the stories in the Bible developed the same way that superstitions develop. This is false. And this is exactly what the science of textual criticism demonstrates. Thru careful study of manuscript origins, oral tradition, secular historical record, and archaeology, and an understanding of the types of literature used in the specific books of the bible, one is able to deduce what is allegorical and what is factual narrative. Obviously, it comes down to an issue of faith... but it is a faith based in a bevy of evidence. One must determine if he/she is going to let prejudice against the supernatural impact the decision to embrace or reject it. Another problem to factor in is the consistent caricature of these accounts and stories, through childrens' illustrations and the like. These innacurate depictions do not negate the truth of the occurances.
In a nutshell, I'm simply saying that there is convincing evidence in support of the Biblical account. That's all. Ridicule it as you see fit.