 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)marlowe big ...and 467 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614211 Today 15 Topics 127548 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Evolution is at the stage of Scientific theory, almost fact but not yet. It still has to be worked on, I'm sure you can understand this, after all it took hundreds of years to compile the bible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Here is a paper showing the probability of a life support body even existing in our universe: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidenc es/20020502_life_support_body_prob.shtml?main |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm pantheistic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there is a less than 1 chance in 10 to the 182nd power of such a planet ever existing |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Where are the transitionary forms in the fossil record? All forms are transitional. Look in the mirror. That's a transitional form. How do we explain convergence? You'll have to be more specific. What about biological systems where there is a codependancy on two or more different traits that could not exist without each other and could only exist having been brought about at the same time? Your lack of imagination is not sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that they could not have existed independently in a modified form. In any case, disproving evolution does not prove creation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as a pantheist you probably would believe in a steady state universe, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
your avatar is really terrifying. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there is a less than 1 chance in 10 to the 182nd power of such a planet ever existing Heh - reminds me of something Douglas Adams said - look at this puddle of water. Notice how every bump and hollow and ripple of the depression is shaped perfectly to hold the shape of the water that is in it! Obviously it must have been designed to hold that water. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't know, would i? you seem to know more about this than i do, i was just making up a word. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
then the puddle dries up and frantically, desperately thinks that everything will be ok because the world was designed for it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why is it that Christians can never provide positive evidence for God, or for creation? They only try (poorly) to knock holes in far better thought out and factually supportable explanations for nature. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but the ratio between failed mutations and successful mutations should show far more failed mutations, or 'half' mutations than what we find in order to have the amount of chance needed for blind evolution to work. Convergence is two similar systems appearing in two very different species, such as a bat and a bird. The wing structures of bats and birds are very different, yet serve a similar function. There is also evidence of various species becoming extinct and then reappering later on in history. The chances of that happening by chance are astronomical. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can most definetly provide evidence for the existance of God. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Evolution isn't blind you dolt. Listen carefully: Natural "SELECTION". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WHIP IT OUT |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the fundamental flaw that i've seen in christian arguments is that they rely on "evidence" found within the bible, which is kind of an appeal to authority. or they simply say "well, there had to be something before the big bang, and god sounds pretty good", which is absurd. the fundamental strength in atheist and thus scientific thought is the burden of proof and the need to find out how and why things are as they are. unlike christians and for that matter any religious person, scientists seek out what is wrong with their ideas first and then iron them out, attempting to find a final answer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't bother. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
First, I believe I that a review of the record of nature implied design, rather than chance. We find all sorts of systems in nature very similar to systems that humans have developed, such as clocks, gears, networks, etc. Once you demonstrate that there is a much greater probability for design, rather than chance, there is then the task of figuring out who this designer is and if he can be discovered. The first obvious thing to do would be to examine all of the worlds religions. I believe that the bible provides the most convincing evidence that it's claims are true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we have a winner! you just proved my point! yes! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Such as: "The Bible is the word of God, the Bible is true" That makes it true all right! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what makes you think that the bible isn't nothing more than a collection of morality tales and early western mythologies? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well I disagree. I think scientists very often start with a preconcieved idea or philosophy and then try to make the evidence fit their model. Of course this is human nature and I'm not saying that christians wouldn't do that as well. There is no such thing as unbiased objectivity when it comes to humans. Be that as it may the vast majority of evidence, imo, points not only to an intelligent designer but the God of the bible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
really? cite that "evidence" and give me a valid reason for why this is true. oh wait....you can't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well for one thing we have prophecy. the bible states that something will happen before the fact and then it does happen just as it said it would. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Once again, I'd like to pose the question glasse: "I would like to know, quite seriously, when the last time was that ANY biblical-literalist-creationist won a Nobel prize in ANY field. Also, has anyone ever won for any work that patently supports a major creationist principle, as opposed to the "evolutionary" view of the nature of the world?" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Example? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but the ratio between failed mutations and successful mutations should show far more failed mutations, or 'half' mutations than what we find in order to have the amount of chance needed for blind evolution to work. I'm going to not be a dick and assume that what you mean by "failed" is detrimental (as opposed to beneficial). But the frequency does not matter, because even if the frequency of beneficial mutations is miniscule, natural selection will favor them and weed out the detrimental ones so eventually the beneficial mutations will become predominant in a given population. So what is the required frequency for beneficial mutations in order for evolution to work? GREATER THAN ZERO. Convergence is two similar systems appearing in two very different species, such as a bat and a bird. The wing structures of bats and birds are very different, yet serve a similar function. Go and actually look up something on That's some of the strongest evidence for evolution there is. Compare the bone structure of bat wings to the foreleg bones of other mammals. Good "God", the whole concept of convergence you're throwing out makes absolutely no sense except in light of evolution. There is also evidence of various species becoming extinct and then reappering later on in history. The chances of that happening by chance are astronomical. Give an example. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you are citing evidence from the source you are attempting to prove true. this is logical fallicy and until you actually provide an argument using something other than the bible as evidence, i won't bother "debating" this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The problem with that question is the assumption that majority view equals truth. The bible clearly addresses that the majority would not believe its claims to be true, not due to a lack of evidence but because of a spiritual unwillingness to accept it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that isn't even a valid point. you're essentially saying that "until you believe me, you're wrong, and i don't need to give any reasons for why i'm right". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is not this: The first obvious thing to do would be to examine all of the worlds religions. making an assumption based on "majority" rather than fact? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is not circular reasoning because the bible is actually a compelation of 66 independant records, not one. Plus the prophecies in question were made hundreds to thousands of years before the events took place. So whether they come from the same religion or not shouldn't matter in light of probability. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Again, could you give an example of these supposed prophecies coming true? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you are making the exact same argument a good friend of mine has made countless times in favor of christianity. it is a logical fallacy to appeal to the thing(s) you are trying to prove, and citing multiple sources as "evidence" is not evidence at all. it doesn't change the fact that you don't have an argument to make. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mappatazee: the point was that one would examine the various information we had for a transcendant designer before looking to the possibility that this was a designer that man was not aware of and who had not revealed himself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes let me get some of them |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Uh, what? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i predicted that star wars episode one would be terrible nearly four years before it came out. i was right. thus god exists. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ahaha. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
btw the type of natural selection you are talking about sounds very much like pantheism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The canonical of silly arguments for God. Look closely, you'll recognize satirized versions of what glasse is attempting here... This one is classic: 10. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists. (2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable (3) Therefore, God exists. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
here is an article covering biblical prophecy and fullfilment. http://www.equip.org/free/DA151.htm |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And as for that silliness about Jesus, is it any wonder that one chapter of a work of historical fiction follows naturally from what came before? There's plenty of fulfilled prophecy in the Iliad too, ya know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But I could turn those same arguments around and apply them to an atheistic evolutionist. 1) if there is no God, evolution must have happened. 2) Creation can't be true, since I lack the spiritual capacity to accept God I accept something far less probable, and to accept the existance of a God, especially the christian version, would make me extremely uncomfortable in that I would be morally accountable for my actions. 3) Therefore no god exists. We are here by blind chance and it is not about what one should do but whether or not he can get away with it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Funny how the Bible was written after these events it supposedly predicted. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
people should show more faith in the old norse gods. thor could certainly kick some ass, and if i remember right, a little thing called ragnarok occurs in which all the gods get killed, thus settling any continuity problems we might have in trying to prove their existance. thor died for you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mappatazee: there are fragments from the book of isaiah found with the dead sea scrolls. these scrolls can accurately be dated to having been buried before Christ. isaiah makes many messianic prophecies. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Show me where a scientist or a supporter of evolution actually makes that argument. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I will have to research the Tyre thing a little more. I don't know a lot about that prophecy inparticular. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
