maiden of rohan Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Truthbetold, I don't think you understand what theory means in science. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Therefore, your whole argument is bunk. I've already provided a definition of what theory actually means in science, so if you'd like to skip upthread, and have a peek, that'd be great. I don't think anyone that lends credence to the not even a hypothesis that is creationism ought to be taken or considered with any level of seriousness. As I said, you are free to believe in creationism all you want. I accept reality. I think you were right though-our worldviews will never mesh because of the fact you believe in fairytales, and I don't. 1
KathyM Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) If there was any evidence to support any of these claims, it would be headline news. Sometimes it is headline news. I've read about cases where people have been miraculously healed after a prayer vigil. If you can cure anyone, then why not everyone? Why in the world are all of you Christians allowing so many people to suffer every day when you only need to clasp your hands and raise your eyes to the Lord? Read my prior post for the answer to that. Speaking in tongues? Really?!?!?! Glossolalia is considered by some to be a pathology. So speaking in a foreign language never learned is a pathology? No. Prophesy? Put it to the test. People have countless times and never has anyone demonstrated anything more than random chance odds. In other words, your claims can and have been tested and they always fail miserably.There are a lot of false prophets. There are also people who have the gift of prophesy. James Randi was offering 1 million dollars to anyone who could provide evidence of anything supernatural. Are you telling me that not one devout Christian could figure out how to put a million bucks to good use? What cowards they must be to have such amazing powers but only to be willing to make untestable claims to back it up, and never help anyone but themselves in private.There is no concrete evidence, which is why it is unexplainable. We can't prove a miracle. We can only form beliefs based on what we observe, and in the cases I mentioned, there is no concrete evidence to present. Edited March 31, 2014 by KathyM
maiden of rohan Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) KathyM, is it unfathomable to you that those that claimed to "speak in tongues" faked it? Even if they did speak in tongues, how does it prove god? Edited March 31, 2014 by maiden of rohan 1
KathyM Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 KathyM, is it unfathomable to you that those that claimed to "speak in tongues" faked it? Even if they did speak in tongues, how does it prove god? Because of God's word as it is written in the Bible. God's word describes how the Holy Spirit came upon believers and gave them the gift of speaking in tongues. And that still happens to this day, where some believers receive the gift of speaking in tongues.
maiden of rohan Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Because of God's word as it is written in the Bible. God's word describes how the Holy Spirit came upon believers and gave them the gift of speaking in tongues. And that still happens to this day, where some believers receive the gift of speaking in tongues. And how do you know that the Bible is true? The bible is the claim, not the evidence. 1
writergal Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Best argument against creationism (and pro evolution) The Latest "Cosmos" Episode Has the Best Argument Yet Against Creationism | Mother Jones
KathyM Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 And how do you know that the Bible is true? The bible is the claim, not the evidence. I believe it to be true, as do all Christians. It is the documented accounts of God's people as to what they experienced or were given knowledge of by God. I believe the accounts of healing to be true, both the accounts given in the Bible, and what others have described to me who have experienced healing first hand. That is all the proof that I need and more. 1
truthbetold Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Truthbetold, I don't think you understand what theory means in science. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Therefore, your whole argument is bunk. I've already provided a definition of what theory actually means in science, so if you'd like to skip upthread, and have a peek, that'd be great. I don't think anyone that lends credence to the not even a hypothesis that is creationism ought to be taken or considered with any level of seriousness. As I said, you are free to believe in creationism all you want. I accept reality. I think you were right though-our worldviews will never mesh because of the fact you believe in fairytales, and I don't. Really? Pretty sure it means this: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. There are still missing pieces, no proof. It's not a "truth". I've explained mathematically why it's impossible. For the DNA to have a to have happened by random chance is indeed laughable. As I said: Even if we have that 4% difference that's still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of 500 pages! You seriously want to assert that mutations occurred in a random fashion to cause this? I see you don't want to try to explain it and dismiss it as "bunk". Well it's not, and I didn't figure you would agree, but perhaps it will help others that may be confused. To have a human being come together by random chance on a molecular level is also absurd. Scientists are still trying to make the "something from nothing" come together and they are failing miserably. Especially when they take it outdoors where supposedly all of this random chance stuff happened. The math is hard to refute, so I get why you don't want to do that and instead dismiss it as "I don't understand". I understand perfectly well, I just don't agree. I see you had nothing to say about the impossible nature of bone being able to be rebuilt in a matter of weeks or even months, proving a "miracle". You don't want to believe, I get it. But once again you dismiss it on the basis that "creationism" isn't worthy of your time to discuss. I also discussed it in math facts as well as the scientific proof of what makes up DNA and molecular chains. It doesn't just "randomly happen".
truthbetold Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 And how do you know that the Bible is true? The bible is the claim, not the evidence. How about the multitudes of Roman History writings that indeed confirm what went down after Christ died? 100,000 fragments of over 1300 dead sea scrolls. The early fathers and Saints of the church. Even if you want to discredit anything through the church, how do you explain the Roman History?
maiden of rohan Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Truthbetold, there is plenty of proof. Mountains of it. All you have to do is look. talkorigins.org is a grand place to start. Failing to understand how something came to be and claiming therefore it must be false is a logical fallacy. Another argument from ignorance. Even so, what you are talking about isn't even evolution. It's abiogenesis, a completely separate field of study, and not remotely linked to evolution which is the explanation for the diversity of life. Yes, it is bunk to call evolution "just a theory." Even you, in your own post, identified what a theory means in science. Do you test the theory of gravity on the tops of roofs by any chance? After all, it's just a theory. (Hint: don't try it). Who ever said anything about randomly? It seems creationists adore throwing that word around to discredit something they clearly do not understand. Sure, we aren't entirely certain how that first cell came into being, but we do know that the building blocks for life can occur naturally. Science isn't even at its peak yet, and there's lots to yet that we need to understand. Not having an answer yet does not mean you ought to fill in the gaps with "God." Also, why don't creationists spend some time gathering evidence for their own little ideas instead of trying to debunk evolution? You know, even if evolution was debunked tomorrow, it still would not prove creation, right? 2
maiden of rohan Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 How about the multitudes of Roman History writings that indeed confirm what went down after Christ died? 100,000 fragments of over 1300 dead sea scrolls. The early fathers and Saints of the church. Even if you want to discredit anything through the church, how do you explain the Roman History? How does any of this prove the bible, and that god exists? 1
Koopa Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 The light we see coming from the far side of our galaxy takes about 100,000 years to get here, the Andromeda galaxy light takes 25 million years to reach us and light from the farthest known galaxy takes 13.5 billion years to reach us. 1
writergal Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 How does any of this prove the bible, and that god exists? It definitely doesn't prove either, nor does it prove the creationist theory. 1
KathyM Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. We can only decide what seems to be the most plausible. Based on what I have read about and what makes the most sense to me, and what I have experienced in my life and in the lives of people I know, creationism is the most convincing theory. I also believe mathematicians have determined the odds being astronomical that our world would exist without creative design. That is not absolute proof, but that is good enough for me. One of my relatives is a mathematician, and has studied this, and I have read a lot about it on my own. I believe the evidence strongly points to there being a God, but of course, it cannot be proven either way. Why do atheists try to disprove creationism when it cannot be proven or disproven? We can only go by what makes the most sense to us. 1
maiden of rohan Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Creationism isn't a theory, KathyM. It's barely even a hypothesis. We don't try and disprove creationism. There's nothing to disprove. No evidence to refute-if there was, creationists would be all over that rather than trying to debunk evolution. Why don't Creationists try and prove creationism? Or, you know, gather some actual evidence at the least. No, I can't disprove god. I can't disprove vampires, trolls, pixies, mermaids, faeries, either, but I see no reason to believe in them. Presumably, most people care about what is true, and not just what "makes sense to us." What "makes sense to us," is very simply not a very reliable pathway to truth. 2
truthbetold Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Truthbetold, there is plenty of proof. Mountains of it. All you have to do is look. talkorigins.org is a grand place to start. Failing to understand how something came to be and claiming therefore it must be false is a logical fallacy. Another argument from ignorance. Even so, what you are talking about isn't even evolution. It's abiogenesis, a completely separate field of study, and not remotely linked to evolution which is the explanation for the diversity of life. Yes, it is bunk to call evolution "just a theory." Even you, in your own post, identified what a theory means in science. Do you test the theory of gravity on the tops of roofs by any chance? After all, it's just a theory. (Hint: don't try it). Who ever said anything about randomly? It seems creationists adore throwing that word around to discredit something they clearly do not understand. Sure, we aren't entirely certain how that first cell came into being, but we do know that the building blocks for life can occur naturally. Science isn't even at its peak yet, and there's lots to yet that we need to understand. Not having an answer yet does not mean you ought to fill in the gaps with "God." Also, why don't creationists spend some time gathering evidence for their own little ideas instead of trying to debunk evolution? You know, even if evolution was debunked tomorrow, it still would not prove creation, right? Ah so then your belief isTalkorigins said it, you believe it, that settles it. Now I get it. I see where your "open mindedness" comes from. And to the bolded:laugh::laugh: and seriously:laugh: That's priceless!:laugh: I do love to laugh. You mean how the evolutionist STOLE the ICTHUS fish and put legs on it and calls it Darwinism? You mean THOSE original ideas? Okay, got it. 1
maiden of rohan Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 So, I get it. You haven't got any evidence of creationism so you get petty. Also, CAPS LOCK DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. Also, I'm not open-minded to stupidity, thanks. 1
KathyM Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Creationism isn't a theory, KathyM. It's barely even a hypothesis. Of course it's a theory, just like evolution is a theory. We don't try and disprove creationism. Of course you do. Many atheists try to challenge and disprove creationism. There's nothing to disprove. No evidence to refute-if there was, creationists would be all over that rather than trying to debunk evolution. Well, you try to disprove the authenticity of the Bible, you try to disprove people's eye witness accounts of miracles which defy explanation, you try to disprove what the Bible says. Why don't Creationists try and prove creationism? Or, you know, gather some actual evidence at the least. Speaking as a Christian, we are not called to try to prove creationism to atheists. We are called to preach the gospel to those who are open to hearing it. We also realize that, to those who are not open to hearing it, no amount of proof will be enough for them. What kind of proof do you think there would be at this point? At some point, God will reveal Himself to all, both believers and unbelievers, to the point where no one could deny that He exists. Before that, He has revealed Himself to some who witnessed His presence. The rest of us trust in the accuracy of the accounts of His disciples, His prophets, and based on our own experiences of Him through His works. No, I can't disprove god. I can't disprove vampires, trolls, pixies, mermaids, faeries, either, but I see no reason to believe in them. Presumably, most people care about what is true, and not just what "makes sense to us." What "makes sense to us," is very simply not a very reliable pathway to truth. Since neither you nor I can prove or disprove the existence of God, we both rely on what makes sense to us, as does everyone else. I believe that God is true, as does the vast majority of the world's population. You cannot prove that it's not true, just as I cannot prove that it is. So let's deal with probabilities. The probability figures that the world came into existence without intelligent design shows it to be virtually impossible without creative design. That is what mathemeticians have determined. The probability that a man recovered from a deadly virus instantaneously after prayer without divine intervention? Or a man experienced healing immediately after prayer without divine intervention? Or what about the diciples accounts, which told of many cases where people were healed by God, who saw it with their own eyes? What is the liklihood that a blind man who encountered Jesus, would just suddenly be able to see after Jesus placed His hands on the man, if not for Jesus' divinity and power? The miracles continue, even in this day and age, and I am certainly not blind to them. So I will continue to believe, because that is what makes sense to me, based on what I have learned and witnessed. So I am done with this debate. You are not open to hearing it, and no amount of proof would ever satisfy you when your mind is not open to it.
pureinheart Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Truthbetold, I don't think you understand what theory means in science. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Therefore, your whole argument is bunk. I've already provided a definition of what theory actually means in science, so if you'd like to skip upthread, and have a peek, that'd be great. I don't think anyone that lends credence to the not even a hypothesis that is creationism ought to be taken or considered with any level of seriousness. As I said, you are free to believe in creationism all you want. I accept reality. I think you were right though-our worldviews will never mesh because of the fact you believe in fairytales, and I don't. Truthbetold, there is plenty of proof. Mountains of it. All you have to do is look. talkorigins.org is a grand place to start. Failing to understand how something came to be and claiming therefore it must be false is a logical fallacy. Another argument from ignorance. Even so, what you are talking about isn't even evolution. It's abiogenesis, a completely separate field of study, and not remotely linked to evolution which is the explanation for the diversity of life. Yes, it is bunk to call evolution "just a theory." Even you, in your own post, identified what a theory means in science. Do you test the theory of gravity on the tops of roofs by any chance? After all, it's just a theory. (Hint: don't try it). Who ever said anything about randomly? It seems creationists adore throwing that word around to discredit something they clearly do not understand. Sure, we aren't entirely certain how that first cell came into being, but we do know that the building blocks for life can occur naturally. Science isn't even at its peak yet, and there's lots to yet that we need to understand. Not having an answer yet does not mean you ought to fill in the gaps with "God." Also, why don't creationists spend some time gathering evidence for their own little ideas instead of trying to debunk evolution? You know, even if evolution was debunked tomorrow, it still would not prove creation, right? So, I get it. You haven't got any evidence of creationism so you get petty. Also, CAPS LOCK DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. Also, I'm not open-minded to stupidity, thanks. Petty? Please look at your own communication… wow
serial muse Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) You mean how the evolutionist STOLE the ICTHUS fish and put legs on it and calls it Darwinism? WTH?? Oh, never mind, I get it now. There's also a Flying Spaghetti Monster version. Personally I always thought the Darwin fish was just meant to be funny. But to be fair I guess I can see how people might not find humor in it. Edited April 1, 2014 by serial muse 1
taiko Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 WTH?? There are bumper stickers and other signage using the Christian symbol of the fish which reemerged in the 1970s although its history may be older then the cross . Sometimes Darwin is written into the body of the fish with legs or feet added to it to imply evolution. Often it has a written message don't try an evangelic message with me to go along with just the visual image mocking the Christian symbol
taiko Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 It's a free country and if having it on my car is mocking, so be it. Not exactly the spirit of the Coexist bumper sticker
TheFinalWord Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 OP, You might check out BioLogos if you are interested in examining the intersect between evolution and theism. BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony The organization was started up by Dr. Francis Collins, geneticist and director of the NIH. Collins has written a few books on this topic. Francis Collins | The BioLogos Forum You might also check out Dr. Craig's "Doctrine of Creation: Excursus on Creation". All the best in your quest! 1
maiden of rohan Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 KathyM, I've already identified what a theory means in science. Calling evolution "just a theory" shows how uneducated you are about 1) science and 2) evolution. Which is why I've never understood why those who clearly have no grasp of science even bother to enter into these debates. It seems pointless. It's not about not being open to hearing it. If you want others to believe, you have to provide them with a reason why they should. You can't just preach the gospel, and then blame the other person for not immediately accepting it. That's one of the issues. If believers were happy to keep their beliefs to themselves, few people would have issues with it. They don't do that though. They preach about beliefs that even they know they can't demonstrate as truth, and then say the other person is simply not open minded when they don't accept it as truth. Again, you keep making arguments from ignorance, which are logical fallacies. Just because you don't understand how something came to be does not mean that you can just insert "God" into every gap. First, you'd have to have evidence of the god's existence and then determine what qualities should a being has, and if he is capable of x/y/z before you could even start identifying it as a cause. Since you don't have that evidence, all you have is faith which is a pretty poor way to truth, but if all you have is faith, so be it. What makes sense to you is not a reliable pathway to truth. Do you care about what is true? I personally do care about what is true, and I want as many, if not all, beliefs I hold to be true, and I don't personally consider using faith a reliable means to finding that out. JMHO.
maiden of rohan Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Petty? Please look at your own communication… wow Please, identify what is "petty" about my communication. Don't take offense where none was meant...wow.
Recommended Posts