Christian & Catholic
- Started
- Last post
- 262 Responses
- Mal0
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites."
Thomas Jefferson.
- opiate0
wise man one told me.
The empty can rattles the most...
side to side-
- moondog0
in the pbs.
posted by someone called r_gaberz.
it's good! and then we can chat about some adorno stuff and - oh! - that reminds me. i've been meaning to bump that manifesto thread. hang on.
- discipler0
How bout those scientists above, in my last post there? Would you take their science? what's your criteria? Or how bout these scientist authors?
http://shop4.gospelcom.net/epage…
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obido…
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obido…
...or is it safe to say you have a solid bias?
- ********0
"Emotion - Feeble attempt at explaining why we express emotion. I'm afraid that doesn't work. You didn't provide an explanation of how macro evolution sufficiently explains it. It cannot."
Feeble in your opinion, where's it clearly is not. Sorry but i completely fail to see how emotion is incompatible with evolution.
That article does NOT put to rest the original article i posted. Can't even begin to tell you why it's wrong. Funny how it uses the exact misinterpretation the article i posted spells out.
And the transitional thing is bollocks. There's many many many fossils of such transitional animals. I dont know what you expect - a one legged monkey?? a hemaphrodite turtle?? what would be "transistional" to you? And why does the lack of something even prove contrary (even tho there's no lack, there's even evidence of homo sapiens breeding with neanderthal's in a half neanderthal half human freak baby skeleton they found)
you crazy.
- discipler0
Mimio, did you expect me hand type those hundreds of scientists? No need to dodge the issue. That would indicate that you are dishonest.
- Mal0
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- opiate0
discipler, I am just curious and I think I might speak for the rest of us.
How about show us your portfolio?
- unfittoprint0
everything is transitional.
- ********0
yes, like creationism.
discipler, we laugh at u posting scientist because dude - what is that supposed to prove?
i can post u a list of respected scientists who are devout muslims, jews, buddhists, atheists (more atheists than anyone else i find ;) )
it's kinda stupid and a way of avoiding the issue when you have no points to back up what u say. but u do that a lot
- Mimio0
Discipler,
I couldn't say, I might read something if it looked credible. Years ago I read Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ" I thought it was tired and contrived. I kind of reluctant to waste my time with books like that these days. As for your list, I find it funny that you post so often as if it has meaning or weight in the conversation. Much like many of your posts it's somewhat intentially deceptive with it's indirectness.
- discipler0
opiate - my portfolio has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. But don't worry it has lots of Helvetica fonts.
kes, you make very little sense. Let me break it down: Remarks were made about the legitimacy of authors and scientists who believe the Creation model. Soooooooo, I directly responded to the criticism by providing countless scientists by name. Point, counterpoint... it is often called. Healthy intelligent debate, on my part. Rather than dodge, as you falsely acuse, I'm actually directly responding to criticisms. It's pretty clear, really. And that's what I do here... provide another viewpoint. And I happily shrug off the insecure who just point and laugh and respond in a way that demonstrates how threatened they feel by the fact that there are significant holes in the religion of naturalism. I just think naturalism requires entirely too much faith. :)
Now, for one last time, I'm going to post what I wrote earlier and if someone would like to break it down point by point and provide me with believable, scientific rebuttal. I will continue in this thread. However, if everyone just wants to duck and dodge and point and laugh... well, good-day.
----------------------------
Let me share some facts that may hopefully spur some honest seekers to do a thoughtful and objective study of origins. Those who vehemently adhere to an evolutionary model for origins do so without bothering to either take a hard look at some of evolution's assumptions, or to wrestle with the real problems that it faces. They have accepted evolution on the basis of authority, because their professors or academic gurus told them so - a kind of faith. Consider as well the very brief time this belief has been around.
It should be noted that Intelligent Design does not ignore the variation and range of adaptibility displayed by living organisms. What it does posit is that the range of adaptibility of organisms is finite. The genome of a dog yields a tremendous range of phenotypical expression, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes... but at the end of the day, they are both still dogs, not cats. And this is exactly what science actually observes. No scientist has ever seen a dog become something other than a dog, or vice-versa. Louis Pasteur's famous observation, that life only comes from life, has never been disproved. His experiments have already falsified all claims that life originated from primordial goo, but philosophical considerations - not facts, not science - prevent this from being accepted by evolutionists. So, which model of origins requires more faith?
What honest seekers need to learn about is such biochemical marvels as the clotting cascade, the chemistry of vision, the bacterial flagellum, and countless others, and decide which hypothesis better explains what is observed, random evolution? or, a creative intelligent guiding force? For biochemical "machines" to function, you must first have all the parts available. Evolution cannot exert selective pressures on something that is non-functioning in the first place. The common sense behind this observation should be manifest to every person who does not have an episemological axe to grind.
Here is a question so fundamental to biological life that it is a wonder that evolution has yet to explain it: if the mechanism by which a trait is inhereted is that it conveys a survival advantage to the possessor, then why are we not all self-fertile hermaphrodites, like earthworms? Dimorphic sexuality - male and female - has no reason to ever arise under evolution since every organism would already have within itself the seeds of its own survival.
Intelligent Design and Creationism is not about illegitimately imposing the dictates of faith upon science, but about raising rational objections to proposed Darwinian explanations of the biological world.
Some specific points to further research, which demonstrate the devastating holes in macro evolution are...
1. The complete lack of transitional fossils between species. The record only contains fully formed species. Consistent with the genome explanation above.
2. The tension between Evolution and Entropy (The Second Law of Thermodynamics). A proven scientific law which states that the universe is breaking down... decaying, if you will. This flies in the face of the macro evolutionary model. The open/closed system arguement has been shown to not hold any water either.
3. Closed experiments intended to generate life via heated pools with electrical charges, etc... have failed miserably, producing nothing that could generate human cells. (See Pasteur's experiments.
)4. Evolution's inability to account for human emotion, the desire to love and be loved and express compassion.
There are countless other foundation crumbling problems with evolution, but I think this post is lengthy enough. And as for the Big Bang - perfectly consistent with the creation model. By posulating it you only push the issue of origins a step back. Who initiated said, Big Bang?
- stphn0
Why are responses to creation driven by hostility, all the while blaming hostility in the world on Christianity.
- discipler0
Mimio, there are far better books out there than Strobel's. Farrrr better ones.
As for deceptiveness, show me where I've been indirect with you. It really sounds like "the pot calling the kettle black", if you will. Looking back I see more instances of this behavior in your replies. I make it a point to respond directly to criticisms rather than dodge.
It's been fun. Good day, all. :)
- GeorgiePorgie0
Facts are the world's data.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.
- Mimio0
Also Discipler,
I think originally the Big Bang statement was made to show how the Biblical account of creation was bunk in view of science fact. There's no way a rational person could proport that the living earth (with plant/animal life) was the first thing in the universe.
- mrdobolina0
there may be a creator, but I doubt any man knows exactly what it is. Many Native Americans believe in "The Great Mystery"
I'd buy that before I bought the whole christian thing.
- stphn0
Some scientists lean towards the big bang being a white hole that ejected matter at a rate that created a "euclidian zone" where time did not exist. This is one explanation of how a fully formed and eroded millions of years old earth was ejected into existence only a few days old.
- Mimio0
stphn,
Where did you read that theory, who's is it?
- stphn0
Not sure that I read it, heard it in a discussion like this once, just wanted to throw some gas on the flames.