Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 30548
...the ear ... and the auditory areas of the brain are marvels of design ... that only an Infinite Intelligence could design ... and PRODUCE!!!!
.... never heard of an audio engineer being into cell biology!!!!
...have a look here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/hearing-ear
..and here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPiXlJ3eIwo
Yea we can't explain the evolution of the eye either, but we're working on it. You don't realise you're backing yourselves into a corner when you use this as an argument for creationism because more than likely science will find the answers eventually.
Also out of interest,are any of you aware that the,in your eyes, "infallible" Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact??0 -
-
Quite a band to suffer from the same delusionary visions - and then another former leading opponent joins them claiming to have seen similar visions. He too endures years of suffering and imprisonment, and finally is beheaded.
Must have been smoking some strong stuff! Or you you think it was the result of a CIA Manchurian Candidate type operation?
Plus they not only died for this lie but they all died alone for this lie, so assuming it was in fact a lie, you could at least find one who would have denied it and said that it was all a lie, suffering as they did, crucifixion, dragging to death, hanging, piercings with the sword, had their flesh peeled from their body with whips and on one could go, and all this for a lie that they knew was a lie, but not only just a lie that they knew was a lie but a lie about their God, which went against their own religion and one they knew would bar them from entry to heaven which they supposedly believed in.
If they were merely deluded because of grief through the loss of their Master then just show them the body of Jesus, that should shut them up. And if they stole the body then they were not deluded but lying again. At least show everyone else the body of Jesus, at least then you would only be left with the disciples believing it, which would have meant that Christianity would never have become the worldwide force it is today. Despite the divisions in churches and in denominations of churches today, there is one thing that they all agree on, and that is that Jesus was raised from the dead.
It is psychologically inconceivable that at least one of these men under the kind of pressure they were under to renege on their testimony would not have caved in had it been a lie. You find the one who broke. Not one of them ever did, there is no record anywhere that any one of these men ever reneged on their testimony which was that Jesus was raised from the dead as a fact of history. With that kind of commitment to something by all these different men in different locations I think their story deserves more than a fleeting glance, because if what they reported is true then it has implications for everyone, and is something everyone should be aware of and it is the right of everyone to know about, and that is the true commission of the church, to preach the good news of Christ raised from the dead and not to deviate from that commission.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
ID states that "complexity" cannot arise from "simplicity", and therefore, that "complexity" needs a designer. ID avoids the question of how the designer arose, since the designer must possess similar "complexity" to be able to design the "complexity" you're trying to explain. Hence invoking ID to explain something is useless.
Mickeroo's post may not have been the clearest, but nonetheless, he's basically correct.
But if a purely naturalistic explanation for how life arose is true then the same question can be applied to the that. What is nature? How did it arise? Explain it. If you can’t then by your rules a purely naturalistic explanation is not a good explanation either. Right?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »But if a purely naturalistic explanation for how life arose is true then the same question can be applied to the that. What is nature? How did it arise? Explain it. If you can’t then by your rules a purely naturalistic explanation is not a good explanation either. Right?
It's not bad scientific practise to study natural explanations for life. It is bad scientific practise to suppose an explanation that can't be studied. This is why intelligent design is not science.
As for the more philosophical version of intelligent design; why not just cut out the middle man?
Consider the following lines of thought:
Life => Nature => God (cannot be fully undertsood by mankind)
Life => Nature (cannot be fully understood by mankind)
[edit] ( I'm using '=>' to mean 'is explained by')
All other things being equal, the second line of thought is simpler than the first.
You can argue that all other things are not equal, and that's fine, but the point is you cannot use the presence of complexity or ignorance of nature to build an argument for God.0 -
It's not bad scientific practise to study natural explanations for life. It is bad scientific practise to suppose an explanation that can't be studied. This is why intelligent design is not science.
As for the more philosophical version of intelligent design; why not just cut out the middle man?
Consider the following lines of thought:
Life => Nature => God (cannot be fully undertsood by mankind)
Life => Nature (cannot be fully understood by mankind)
[edit] ( I'm using '=>' to mean 'is explained by')
All other things being equal, the second line of thought is simpler than the first.
You can argue that all other things are not equal, and that's fine, but the point is you cannot use the presence of complexity or ignorance of nature to build an argument for God.
I'm not, I'm asking you to explain the essence of nature. What is it? And how did it arise? Even if it is the more simplistic of the two explanations, I still need you to explain how the reality of your explanation arose. If you cannot explain that then the logic that prohibits ID as a valid explanation also prohibits your explanation.0 -
-
Soul Winner wrote: »With that kind of commitment to something by all these different men in different locations I think their story deserves more than a fleeting glance, because if what they reported is true then it has implications for everyone, and is something everyone should be aware of and it is the right of everyone to know about, and that is the true commission of the church, to preach the good news of Christ raised from the dead and not to deviate from that commission.
And by the same logic we can prove beyond all doubt that David Koresh was in fact Jesus. After all 76 people burnt to death for him, and surely out of the 76 people one of them would have left the compound rather than burn to death if Koresh has in fact not been Jesus. It is totally inconceivable that he could trick 76 people into believing him if he wasn't who he said he was. 10 people maybe. 15 people is stretching plausibility. But 76 people tricked? Nonsense!
The fact that none of them left does surely prove beyond all doubt that he was who he claimed to be.
Brilliant. One wonders why we bother with science at all :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »But if a purely naturalistic explanation for how life arose is true then the same question can be applied to the that. What is nature? How did it arise? Explain it. If you can’t then by your rules a purely naturalistic explanation is not a good explanation either. Right?
No, because science isn't making any assumptions about how nature came to exist (and before you say it, no science is not assuming it wasn't God)
You need to look at what the argument for Intelligent Design is. The argument is that some humans have looked at this (life) and come to the conclusion that it could not have happened without intelligence doing something, even if they have no clue what that something was.
That is it. That is all the support there is for ID. It is an argument from ignorance. We don't know how this could happen naturally so we are going to assume it didn't. There are no models or tests or predictions or experiments. It is simply a bunch of guys looking at something and concluding that it could never have happened naturally.
That is pointless from a scientific point of view. Why? Because they could be wrong. They can't demonstrate they aren't, and we can't test they are.
So we know exactly as much before this as we do after it. It adds nothing to the discussion of biological life, it is simply a guess.
More importantly, and very tellingly, the Intelligent Design supporters are not dropping their argument when things are explained naturally.
They don't drop the argument We don't know how this could happen naturally so we assume it didn't when it is actually demonstrated how it could happen naturally. They simply fudge over this and move onto another argument.
The classic example is the Flagellum, something Intelligent Design advocates claimed could not have evolved. This is an argument from ignorance. What they meant was we don't know how this could have evolved, so we are going to say it couldn't and assume that it must have been designed by something.
Surely if the argument is we don't know how this could have evolved so we assume it is designed, then if you figure out how it evolved you should not assume it was designed, right? Wrong!
The important bit is that they didn't drop this when it was demonstrated how it could have evolved - http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
This goes to the heart of the dishonesty in the Intelligent Design movement. It is not an honest attempt to find truth. It is a dishonest attempt to find some where for God to live within biology.
They don't care about finding out how the flagellum, or any other biological thing, came to be. Not a single Intelligent Designer continued to study the flagellum using evolutionary framework after it was worked out how it could evolve. They don't care about the flagellum.
All they care about is trying to find some argument in support of the idea that Intelligence (ie God) had a hand in something.
It is dishonest and it is not science. And some what more fundamentally, it blackens the noble aim of science, the exploration of the world around us.0 -
And by the same logic we can prove beyond all doubt that David Koresh was in fact Jesus. After all 76 people burnt to death for him, and surely out of the 76 people one of them would have left the compound rather than burn to death if Koresh has in fact not been Jesus. It is totally inconceivable that he could trick 76 people into believing him if he wasn't who he said he was. 10 people maybe. 15 people is stretching plausibility. But 76 people tricked? Nonsense!
The fact that none of them left does surely prove beyond all doubt that he was who he claimed to be.
Brilliant. One wonders why we bother with science at all
David Koresh claimed to be Jesus and brainwashed people into believing it. The people who were killed in that tragedy did not die because they would not renege on their testimony that David Koresh was in fact Jesus. It was an awful tragedy and the government were culpable in their deaths as well as Koresh. He used force of arms to hold the people there, he was an evil nut case and that is evidenced by his actions. What actions did Jesus do that would make you call Jesus an evil nut cases like that?
To use the Koresh incident as an analogy of what the disciples of Jesus suffered is a heinous use of analogy. I suppose you think the followers of Jimmy Jones volunteered for the poison they got too? No force was used to make them take it I suppose? The disciples of Jesus died alone, and could have reneged on their testimony at anytime and none of the others would have known about it due to their geographical distances from each at that time, but they didn't. Why not? Two reasons: They were either truly deluded by Jesus or what they preached actually happened. The latter is the more plausible because if there were truly deluded then all that had to be done to show these honestly deluded disciples that it wasn’t true was to show them the body of Jesus. Plus they never forced anyone to believe their testimony. They preached the gospel and you either accepted it or you didn't.
And in any case I never even said that it proved anything, I just said that their testimony deserves more than a fleeting glance, which it does, and if it is true then the resurrection of Jesus is the centre of history and the implications of it reaches to everyone whether you believe it or don’t believe it.0 -
No, because science isn't making any assumptions about how nature came to exist (and before you say it, no science is not assuming it wasn't God)
You need to look at what the argument for Intelligent Design is. The argument is that some humans have looked at this (life) and come to the conclusion that it could not have happened without intelligence doing something, even if they have no clue what that something was.
That is it. That is all the support there is for ID. It is an argument from ignorance. We don't know how this could happen naturally so we are going to assume it didn't. There are no models or tests or predictions or experiments. It is simply a bunch of guys looking at something and concluding that it could never have happened naturally.
That is pointless from a scientific point of view. Why? Because they could be wrong. They can't demonstrate they aren't, and we can't test they are.
So we know exactly as much before this as we do after it. It adds nothing to the discussion of biological life, it is simply a guess.
More importantly, and very tellingly, the Intelligent Design supporters are not dropping their argument when things are explained naturally.
They don't drop the argument We don't know how this could happen naturally so we assume it didn't when it is actually demonstrated how it could happen naturally. They simply fudge over this and move onto another argument.
The classic example is the Flagellum, something Intelligent Design advocates claimed could not have evolved. This is an argument from ignorance. What they meant was we don't know how this could have evolved, so we are going to say it couldn't and assume that it must have been designed by something.
Surely if the argument is we don't know how this could have evolved so we assume it is designed, then if you figure out how it evolved you should not assume it was designed, right? Wrong!
The important bit is that they didn't drop this when it was demonstrated how it could have evolved - http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
This goes to the heart of the dishonesty in the Intelligent Design movement. It is not an honest attempt to find truth. It is a dishonest attempt to find some where for God to live within biology.
They don't care about finding out how the flagellum, or any other biological thing, came to be. Not a single Intelligent Designer continued to study the flagellum using evolutionary framework after it was worked out how it could evolve. They don't care about the flagellum.
All they care about is trying to find some argument in support of the idea that Intelligence (ie God) had a hand in something.
It is dishonest and it is not science. And some what more fundamentally, it blackens the noble aim of science, the exploration of the world around us.
Thanks for that, it was very informative and correct but off the point of what I was saying. If ID is false then everything came about naturally right? Ok so explain nature then. If the 'God did it" explanation needs to explain God then the 'Happened naturally' explanation needs to explain nature. I don't believe this myself, I'm only using you rules against the 'It happened naturally' explanation as you do against the 'God did it' explanation.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »I'm not, I'm asking you to explain the essence of nature. What is it? And how did it arise? Even if it is the more simplistic of the two explanations, I still need you to explain how the reality of your explanation arose. If you cannot explain that then the logic that prohibits ID as a valid explanation also prohibits your explanation.
Why would we have to answer philosophical questions about nature if we want to consider Darwinian evolution as an explanation of how life arose? Remember that I said it's not bad scientific practise to study natural explanations for life. The natural explanation opens avenues of investigation. We can (and did) intensively study and test evolution to better understood how life arose.
What invalidates ID as a scientific theory is we cannot study this explanation. We suppose an answer to the question of complexity that closes avenues of investigation. As a result, we cannot test or study the explanation to see if it is true.
This *doesn't* mean that ID is invalidated as a philosophical argument (which you seem to be inferring from us). But the philosophical argument has other problems that I mentioned earlier.0 -
Why would we have to answer philosophical questions about nature if we want to consider Darwinian evolution as an explanation of how life arose?
It was Atomic Horror who said that being a scientist is about your philosophical approach to the evidence. That's what’s got us on this track. But that must be wrong is it? Is it about our philosophical approach to the evidence?Remember that I said it's not bad scientific practise to study natural explanations for life. The natural explanation opens avenues of investigation. We can (and did) intensively study and test evolution to better understood how life arose.
But I thought the study of evolution didn't deal with how life arose only how it progressed after it got going?What invalidates ID as a scientific theory is we cannot study this explanation. We suppose an answer to the question of complexity that closes avenues of investigation. As a result, we cannot test or study the explanation to see if it is true.
What kind of features would something have to have in order for you to say that it was designed? It appears that no matter how far one delves into any organism one is perplexed by the arrangement of the matter and how that the matter is no big deal itself just how it all interoperates with each other. Proponents of ID simply state that that complexity bespeaks a designer, what else are they suppose to say if that is what they genuinely believe to be the case? And just because the designer cannot be tested doesn't mean that one can hold that it was in fact designed. To say it all just came about naturally also needs a valid explanation but there is no way to test this either, so the safer ground (academically at least)seems to be the natural explanation, but that does not mean that it is right.This *doesn't* mean that ID is invalidated as a philosophical argument (which you seem to be inferring from us). But the philosophical argument has other problems that I mentioned earlier.
I know, but as I said above this argument stems from a comment made by AH that the philosophic approach to the evidence is all that matters and he wasn't talking about how proponents of ID approach their study, he was talking about the scientific method itself. Now is he wrong about this IYO? If he is, then how? Personally I think he has it spot on, my gripe is how can one validate that philosophy by the scientific method that it spawned?0 -
...BUT there are NO natural explanations for life that can be studied ... and the Intelligent Design of life IS obvious ... and it CAN be studied....It's not bad scientific practise to study natural explanations for life. It is bad scientific practise to suppose an explanation that can't be studied. This is why intelligent design is not science.
.....on this basis Materialism isn't scientific when it comes to origins and ID is scientific!!!:D:)
...but all other things AREN'T equal with these statements!!!!As for the more philosophical version of intelligent design; why not just cut out the middle man?
Consider the following more straightforward lines of thought:
Life => Nature => God (cannot be fully understood by mankind)
Life => Nature (cannot be fully understood by mankind)
[edit] ( I'm using '=>' to mean 'is explained by')
All other things being equal, the second line of thought is simpler than the first.
Consider the following lines of thought:-
God => Life.
Matter /=> Life.
(where '=>' means 'is capable of producing'....
...and '/=>' means 'is not capable of producing')
...Creation Scientists DON'T use EITHER 'the presence of complexity or ignorance of nature' to build an argument for God .... they are leading scientists with 'cutting edge' scientific knowledge of natural processes ... and they argue that it is INFORMATION and not complexity that cannot arise by non-inteligently directed processes ... and it is the vast quantities of SPECIFIC INFORMATION in living organisms that points towards a Divine Origin for all life.:pac::):DYou can argue that all other things are not equal, and that's fine, but the point is you cannot use the presence of complexity or ignorance of nature to build an argument for God.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »It was Atomic Horror who said that being a scientist is about your philosophical approach to the evidence. That's what’s got us on this track. But that must be wrong is it? Is it about our philosophical approach to the evidence?
I think you misunderstand what he meant by the term 'philosophical'. He just meant the way the evidence is approached.0 -
...but all other things AREN'T equal with these statements!!!!
Consider the following lines of thought:-
God => Life.
Matter /=> Life.
(where '=>' means 'is capable of producing'....
...and '/=>' means 'is not capable of producing')
*sigh*
Saying it doesn't make it true. Matter doesn't create life (because the term 'create' implies an active agent), but all life is matter....Creation Scientists DON'T use EITHER the presence of complexity or ignorance of nature to build an argument for God .... they are leading scientists with 'cutting edge' scientific knowledge of natural processes ... and the argue that it is INFORMATION and not complexity that cannot arise by non-inteligently directed processes ... and it is the vast quantities of SPECIFIC INFORMATION in living organisms that point towards a Divine Origin for all life.:pac::):D
Yes, but you've failed to define what you mean by 'information'. Also, you've failed to provide any evidence of any of these scientists or their 'cutting edge' scientific knowledge. Need I point out again that creationists who are scientists are not creation scientists unless they're doing creation research?0 -
....I said that matter 'is not capable of producing' life ... no more than it is capable of producing a computer programme or writing a book without an intelligent input!!!!Originally Posted by J C
...but all other things AREN'T equal with these statements!!!!
Consider the following lines of thought:-
God => Life.
Matter /=> Life.
(where '=>' means 'is capable of producing'....
...and '/=>' means 'is not capable of producing')
The Mad Hatter
*sigh*
Saying it doesn't make it true. Matter doesn't create life (because the term 'create' implies an active agent), but all life is matter.
...you seem to be having awful difficulty understanding this obvious fact ... that information is a definitive indicator of intelligent activity!!!!:pac::):D
the full equation is :-
Matter + Intelligence => Life.0 -
....some more mind expanding quotes from the great Dr Stephen Meyer PhD History and Philosophy of Science
"Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed. Since information requires an intelligent source, the flowers spelling "Welcome to Victoria" in the gardens of Victoria harbor in Canada lead visitors to infer the activity of intelligent agents even if they did not see the flowers planted and arranged." DNA and Other Designs
"Design theorists infer design not just because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems--that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause. For example, in his book Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Michael Behe has inferred design not only because the gradualistic mechanism of natural selection cannot produce "irreducibly complex" systems, but also because in our experience "irreducible complexity" is a feature of systems known to have been intelligently designed. That is, whenever we see systems that have the feature of irreducible complexity and we know the causal story about how such systems originated, invariably "intelligent design" played a role in the origin of such systems. Thus, Behe infers intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of irreducible complexity in cellular molecular motors, for example, based upon what we know, not what we don’t know, about the causal powers of nature and intelligent agents, respectively. " DNA and Other Designs
"Design theorists infer a past intelligent cause based upon present knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Inferences to design thus employ the standard uniformitarian method of reasoning used in all historical sciences, many of which routinely detect intelligent causes. We would not say, for example, that an archeologist had committed a "scribe of the gaps" fallacy simply because he inferred that an intelligent agent had produced an ancient hieroglyphic inscription. Instead, we recognize that the archeologist has made an inference based upon the presence of a feature (namely, "high information content") that invariably implicates an intelligent cause, not (solely) upon the absence of evidence for a suitably efficacious natural cause." DNA and Other Designs0 -
Advertisement
-
....I said that matter 'is not capable of producing' life ... no more than it is capable of producing a computer programme or writing a book without an intelligent input!!!!
Somehow, I don't think early life was nearly that complex. Also, if you really do have a four year old, I think it's safe to say you produced her - possibly (hopefully) with some help....you seem to be having awful difficulty understanding the obvious fact ... that information is a definitive indicator of intelligent activity!!!!:pac::):D
Sometimes your circles are so small it's cute. Information implies intelligence implies information...
We're asking you to define information so that we can measure it for ourselves in order to see whether ID is true - and you have to believe ID is true for the definition of information to make sense!
Seems a bit like saying 'my invisible house is white'.0 -
...BUT there are NO natural explanations for life that can be studied ... and the Intelligent Design of life IS obvious ... and it CAN be studied....
.....on this basis Materialism isn't scientific when it comes to origins and ID is scientific!!!:D:)
...but all other things AREN'T equal with these statements!!!!
Consider the following lines of thought:-
God => Life.
Matter /=> Life.
(where '=>' means 'is capable of producing'....
...and '/=>' means 'is not capable of producing')
There is no evidence for the second line of thought....Creation Scientists DON'T use EITHER the presence of complexity or ignorance of nature to build an argument for God .... they are leading scientists with 'cutting edge' scientific knowledge of natural processes ... and the argue that it is INFORMATION and not complexity that cannot arise by non-inteligently directed processes ... and it is the vast quantities of SPECIFIC INFORMATION in living organisms that point towards a Divine Origin for all life.:pac::):D
Non-random selection of random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of life/"biological information"."Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed. Since information requires an intelligent source, the flowers spelling "Welcome to Victoria" in the gardens of Victoria harbor in Canada lead visitors to infer the activity of intelligent agents even if they did not see the flowers planted and arranged." DNA and Other Designs
"Design theorists infer design not just because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems--that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause. For example, in his book Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Michael Behe has inferred design not only because the gradualistic mechanism of natural selection cannot produce "irreducibly complex" systems, but also because in our experience "irreducible complexity" is a feature of systems known to have been intelligently designed. That is, whenever we see systems that have the feature of irreducible complexity and we know the causal story about how such systems originated, invariably "intelligent design" played a role in the origin of such systems. Thus, Behe infers intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of irreducible complexity in cellular molecular motors, for example, based upon what we know, not what we don’t know, about the causal powers of nature and intelligent agents, respectively. " DNA and Other Designs
"Design theorists infer a past intelligent cause based upon present knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Inferences to design thus employ the standard uniformitarian method of reasoning used in all historical sciences, many of which routinely detect intelligent causes. We would not say, for example, that an archeologist had committed a "scribe of the gaps" fallacy simply because he inferred that an intelligent agent had produced an ancient hieroglyphic inscription. Instead, we recognize that the archeologist has made an inference based upon the presence of a feature (namely, "high information content") that invariably implicates an intelligent cause, not (solely) upon the absence of evidence for a suitably efficacious natural cause." DNA and Other Designs
These quotes are nonsense and have nothing to do with biology.
Now that all the silly business is out of the way....Soul Winner wrote:But I thought the study of evolution didn't deal with how life arose only how it progressed after it got going?
I'll be more specific; evolution explains how life, in its current level of diversity and complexity, arose. It is true that evolution does not explain how the first replicating molecule arose.What kind of features would something have to have in order for you to say that it was designed? It appears that no matter how far one delves into any organism one is perplexed by the arrangement of the matter and how that the matter is no big deal itself just how it all interoperates with each other.
Our rules and definitions of what is and isn't designed usually work well for identifying whether or not something is designed. But these rules and definitions break down when we consider life. When considering life, we must also consider reproduction, inheritance, mutation, natural selection etc. Not only do our rules break down, but these considerations actually predict the kind of evidence that scientists have been finding for years.Proponents of ID simply state that that complexity bespeaks a designer, what else are they suppose to say if that is what they genuinely believe to be the case?
That ID is not science.And just because the designer cannot be tested doesn't mean that one can hold that it was in fact designed. To say it all just came about naturally also needs a valid explanation but there is no way to test this either, so the safer ground (academically at least)seems to be the natural explanation, but that does not mean that it is right.
There is no scientific theory which claims that everything happened naturally. There is a scientific theory of the development of life through a natural processes.
So if, by natural explanation, you mean some ultimate explanation for the universe, and not evolution, then I'm not going to argue.I know, but as I said above this argument stems from a comment made by AH that the philosophic approach to the evidence is all that matters and he wasn't talking about how proponents of ID approach their study, he was talking about the scientific method itself. Now is he wrong about this IYO? If he is, then how? Personally I think he has it spot on, my gripe is how can one validate that philosophy by the scientific method that it spawned?
I'm not sure what AH said. If I jumped in at the wrong time then my apologies. I will emphasise my earlier point that ID is not testable, so even if it is true, we have no means of investigating whether or not it is true.
ID is less an explanation, and more an incredulous response.
Note: It's important to mention that, by ID, I am referring to the idea life was intelligently designed, as opposed to the broader teleological argument.0 -
-
Just checking in.
J C panic-posting quotes... check.
Sitting this thread out for a bit while I get my teeth into some serious paper and thesis writing. I can write 1000 words on a thread like this in minutes. But for some reason the other stuff takes all day...
In my flaky absence, remember the 13 questions, and have a listen to the Martin Brazeau versus Kent Hovind radio debate on YouTube. It's great stuff. It made me think of a nice Question 14, which I'll add to the great big list of stuff the Creationists cannot answer... soon.0 -
As opposed to what? Jesus claiming to be God and "brainwashing" people into believing it?Soul Winner wrote: »David Koresh claimed to be Jesus and brainwashed people into believing it.
(btw brainwashing is inaccurate to describe both Koresh or Jesus)Soul Winner wrote: »The disciples of Jesus died alone, and could have reneged on their testimony at anytime and none of the others would have known about it due to their geographical distances from each at that time, but they didn't. Why not? Two reasons: They were either truly deluded by Jesus or what they preached actually happened.
Same with Koresh.
They didn't leave or surrender because they were either deluded by Koresh or Koresh was who he said he was. The latter is far more plausible that the former. There were 76 of them, and one Koresh, you think Koresh was holding a gun to 76 heads at the same time. If they wanted to leave they could have easily over powered him and left.
The fact that so many people were loyal and followed Koresh stretches the believability of the deluded argument to the point of nonsense. How could one person delude so many people into following him and believing in him if it wasn't true.
The only conclusion left is that Koresh was who he said he was. Every other scenario is implausible and cannot be explained.
He couldn't have held them all there if they didn't want to stay there. He was one man.
He couldn't have deceived all of the, one man deceiving 10 people to burn to dead is implausible let alone 76.
He must have been who he said he wasSoul Winner wrote: »The latter is the more plausible because if there were truly deluded then all that had to be done to show these honestly deluded disciples that it wasn’t true was to show them the body of Jesus.
What body? Weren't they executed years after Jesus died? Matthew was killed in Africa, did his executioners carry the body of Jesus around with them?Soul Winner wrote: »Plus they never forced anyone to believe their testimony. They preached the gospel and you either accepted it or you didn't.
Koresh never forced anyone into believing the testimony either. He simply told them what he was, and they all believed him. All of them Soul Winner.
You can't explain that. It is impossible to explain how they all would accept him unless he was who he said he was0 -
No. If ID is false then ID is false. Making assumptions about what it means if ID is false is as silly as IDSoul Winner wrote: »Thanks for that, it was very informative and correct but off the point of what I was saying. If ID is false then everything came about naturally right?
You guys have to stop making assumptions about how the universe is and start looking at what the universe is telling us it is.
Humans have been wrong about pretty much every single assumption about the universe they have ever made, from the Sun going around the Earth to the speed of light to locality in quantium physics
I see no reason to see the assumption "God/Someone did it" as being any different to that.
The entire field of science is about explaining nature.Soul Winner wrote: »Ok so explain nature then. If the 'God did it" explanation needs to explain God then the 'Happened naturally' explanation needs to explain nature.Soul Winner wrote: »I don't believe this myself, I'm only using you rules against the 'It happened naturally' explanation as you do against the 'God did it' explanation.
Yes but you are missing the point. We model nature. And the bits we can't model ("before" the Big Bang for example, our "outside" the universe) we don't make assumptions about. And we certainly don't assume those assumptions are true because we don't have anything else.
We say "WE DO NOT KNOW"
Creationist doe the exact opposite to this.
They can't model God. They can't test God. They can't model ID and certainly can't test ID.
That doesn't stop them making assumptions and guesses about it (God exists, he did this then he did that then he did this), and trying to pass them off as science.0 -
As opposed to what? Jesus claiming to be God and "brainwashing" people into believing it?
Well no, all the disciples fled when Jesus was taken and brought to trial. They didn't even believe the story that He had risen until they had seen Him for themselves. Even though they were witness to many miracles during Jesus' earthly ministry it wasn't until the resurrection that they became convinced that His prior claims were true and that He was the real Son of God. Peter was the only one to recognise it in His earthly ministry and that insight came not from Jesus but from Peter. He proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of the most high after a question asked by Jesus as to who they thought He was, and Jesus in response to Peter’s proclamation said that flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you but the spirit of my Father in heaven.
Jesus never manipulated people into believing He was the son of God, He just made claims that no mortal man has a right to make (all authority in heaven and earth is given unto me, if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the father, and on one could go) and these claims were vindicated by God when He raised Jesus from the dead. It was for this testimony that the disciples paid with their lives, and were even happy to do it. Their deaths were not accidents, they knew they were going to die, they could have stopped it, all they had to do was stop preaching that Jesus was raised from the dead. They ordered Peter for example: “Don’t you preach this message anymore” and he said: ”Do I serve man or God?” and he wouldn’t shut up.
David Koresh manipulated people while he was still alive. His claims were never vindicated by God. Koresh also claimed to be a reincarnation of Cyrus an ancient king of Persia before he claimed that he was Christ. Hello!!! Which is it David? He changed his name from Vernon Howell to David Koresh which means David Cyrus. One minute he preaches monogamy and the next minute he’s preaching polygamy. He annulled marriages of people who joined his cult in order that he could have sexual relations with the women and spread his seed. He had sex with teenage girls, even some as young as 12 years old. He and his buddies removed the leader of the Branch Davidian with force of arms. The people who died in that fire didn’t know that they were going to die that day. And even if they did know and were willing to die for their beliefs all it proves is that they truly believed that Koresh was the son of God. But now that he is dead, how many people believe that David Koresh is still the son of God now?
Jesus was crucified 2000 years ago and nearly two billion people today believe he is the Son of God. In 2000 years time the world will have long forgotten about David Koresh.
Koresh was genuinely believed in as the son of God of that there is no doubt but when were his claims vindicated by God like anything approaching the scale of the resurrection of Jesus? The preaching of which the disciples paid with their lives.Same with Koresh.
They didn't leave or surrender because they were either deluded by Koresh or Koresh was who he said he was. The latter is far more plausible that the former. There were 76 of them, and one Koresh, you think Koresh was holding a gun to 76 heads at the same time. If they wanted to leave they could have easily over powered him and left.
Well that is the choice isn’t it? He either deluded these people or he was who He claimed to be. What do you believe? When were his claims vindicated by God? There wasn’t any such vindication and none was ever claimed by any of his followers either, and especially none that any of them would happily die for now. So all you are left with are the delusions and contrivances of a mere mortal criminally insane man.The fact that so many people were loyal and followed Koresh stretches the believability of the deluded argument to the point of nonsense. How could one person delude so many people into following him and believing in him if it wasn't true.
You don’t believe that though.The only conclusion left is that Koresh was who he said he was. Every other scenario is implausible and cannot be explained.
Look even if what remains of his disciples died not reneging on their belief that Koresh was the son of God, that only serves to prove that they genuinely believed it. There are no reports of any post-mortem appearances of Koresh by his disciples, no empty grave reported either and no reports of accession into glory, all of which the disciples of Jesus died proclaiming. The disciples claimed to have witnessed these things personally, so they were either lying, deluded or telling what actually happened.
I believe they were telling the truth for many reasons. For one on face value alone they just don’t sound like they are making it up. There is no good explanation for these men to have made up such a ridiculous story as Jesus raising from the dead. There is nothing in their own scripture that bares any relevance to it, so to the first hearers of this message, the Jews, it makes little sense indeed.
If they were merely making it up then that means that they don’t care about the truth which means they would make it sound like something like those awaiting a messiah would have expected to hear. That Jesus came forth from the tomb in blaze of glory like prophecies of messiah of old, but no, they have women finding the empty tomb and Jesus appearing to them like a normal living man, no blaze of glory. The testimony of women was worthless in Palestine at that time, so if they were merely making it up then they would have had one of the major players in the story up to that point find the empty tomb, like Peter or John and they would have embellished the story with blazes of glory all over the place. We don’t see this in the record which suggests an honest narrative of events at least.
He had henchmen with guns hello??? How do you think the government forces could not gain entry?He couldn't have held them all there if they didn't want to stay there. He was one man.
Unfortunately these people who died have no voice except for the ones who did manage to escape, they say that they were being shot at by the FBI, which means that they were trying at least to get out of there.He couldn't have deceived all of the, one man deceiving 10 people to burn to dead is implausible let alone 76.
No, but the first preaching’s were done in the very city that their master was crucified in, Jerusalem. All the authorities had to do to silence the first preaching and nip this new movement in the bud was to produce the body of Jesus. Which means that the tomb was empty. Now, how was the tomb empty? If the disciples stole the body then they were liars which brings us to back to the start. If they were liars then why do they include things in their story that hurt their story, like women finding the empty tomb and not men? No blazes of glory like the Jews would have expected from their messiah.What body? Weren't they executed years after Jesus died? Matthew was killed in Africa, did his executioners carry the body of Jesus around with them?
If the Jews stole the body then they would have produced it instantly in order to shut up the preaching.
And if the Romans stole the body then they too would have produce the body in order to quell the controversy in their realm. What happen to the body?
No he twisted scripture in such a way that he convinced them that he was the messiah, based on already established Branch Davidian messianic expectancies. The opener of the seals in the book of revelation. Like many other cult leaders have done with their followers, appealed to their already established beliefs, it is called manipulation of honest beleivers.Koresh never forced anyone into believing the testimony either. He simply told them what he was, and they all believed him. All of them Soul Winner.
Like I said earlier, he either was or wasn’t who He claimed to be. The genuine belief of his followers is not enough to convince me that he was. I need supernatural vindication from God and eyewitness testimony to that vindication, with which said eyewitness ‘willing’ to pay with their lives for same. Only then could I even begin to even contemplate taking a look seriously at the claims of David Koresh, but as it happens I am a million miles away from that. His actions alone with the kids and the women are just sickening which puts me off straight away, and his use of arms is also very telling, especially when it was not for defence purposes which is indicated in the way he used them to usurp the position of the real Branch Davidian leader.
I don’t think I did too bad in explaining it. Are they any other cult leaders stories you would like to put against the New Testament story of Jesus. Bring them on.You can't explain that. It is impossible to explain how they all would accept him unless he was who he said he was0 -
Yes they were. Koresh preached that the Waco assault would happen.Soul Winner wrote: »David Koresh manipulated people while he was still alive. His claims were never vindicated by God.
How could he have known that if we wasn't who he claimed to? Is prophecy not an strong indication of divine power?
And yet 76 people were prepared to die with him. How do you explain that?Soul Winner wrote: »Koresh also claimed to be a reincarnation of Cyrus an ancient king of Persia before he claimed that he was Christ. Hello!!! Which is it David? He changed his name from Vernon Howell to David Koresh which means David Cyrus. One minute he preaches monogamy and the next minute he’s preaching polygamy. He annulled marriages of people who joined his cult in order that he could have sexual relations with the women and spread his seed. He had sex with teenage girls, even some as young as 12 years old. He and his buddies removed the leader of the Branch Davidian with force of arms.
Surely they would have all be horrified by what he was doing unless they knew he was acting under the authority of Jesus
They most certainly did. A large number of the followers shot their children and then shot themselves, instead of falling into the hands of the governmentSoul Winner wrote: »The people who died in that fire didn’t know that they were going to die that day.
Why would they done that if Koresh had not demonstrated that he was who he claimed to be? Why would they have done that if he had not proven himself to them?
Quite a few actually. He still has supporters in America who believe he will return to Earth some day. Some of them never even meet him, yet is message was powerful enough to convince them to dedicate their lives to his following.Soul Winner wrote: »And even if they did know and were willing to die for their beliefs all it proves is that they truly believed that Koresh was the son of God. But now that he is dead, how many people believe that David Koresh is still the son of God now?
How could he have known about the Waco siege before it happened Soul Winner?Soul Winner wrote: »Well that is the choice isn’t it? He either deluded these people or he was who He claimed to be. What do you believe? When were his claims vindicated by God?
That isn't true. Koresh performed miracles to his followers, miracles so convincing that they were prepared to die rather than give up his teachings.Soul Winner wrote: »There wasn’t any such vindication and none was ever claimed by any of his followers either
How do you explain that?
Exactly the same with Koresh's followers. They witnessed things in Waco that cannot be explained unless he was divine.Soul Winner wrote: »The disciples claimed to have witnessed these things personally, so they were either lying, deluded or telling what actually happened.
Henchmen with guns who shot themselves for him. You can't explain that by saying they were motivated by power or greed.Soul Winner wrote: »He had henchmen with guns hello??? How do you think the government forces could not gain entry?
How do you explain that they were prepared to kill themselves, and others, for his teaching?Soul Winner wrote: »No he twisted scripture in such a way that he convinced them that he was the messiah, based on already established Branch Davidian messianic expectancies. The opener of the seals in the book of revelation. Like many other cult leaders have done with their followers, appealed to their already established beliefs, it is called manipulation of honest beleivers.
Weren't the early Christians mostly Jews?
And you get that from where in Christianity? The genuine belief of the followersSoul Winner wrote: »Like I said earlier, he either was or wasn’t who He claimed to be. The genuine belief of his followers is not enough to convince me that he was. I need supernatural vindication from God and eyewitness testimony to that vindication
That has nothing to do with if it is true. God did some pretty sickening things in the Old Testament, but he could because he was God.Soul Winner wrote: »His actions alone with the kids and the women are just sickening which puts me off straight away
The Hebrews conquered their neighbours. God has no problem with violence if it is necessary And Koresh speaking for God would know if this was the case.Soul Winner wrote: »and his use of arms is also very telling0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Yes they were. Koresh preached that the Waco assault would happen.
How could he have known that if we wasn't who he claimed to? Is prophecy not an strong indication of divine power?
Bit of a no-brainer really. He was raping kids for crying out loud. You don't need to be endowed with the gift of prophecy to know that the authorities will be coming for you soon. Except he told his followers that the authorities were coming for them. Which was a lie.And yet 76 people were prepared to die with him. How do you explain that?
Like I said, they believed in him.Surely they would have all be horrified by what he was doing unless they knew he was acting under the authority of Jesus
I would say that the fear to say anything about it was what prevented them. They believe he was the son of God remember, don’t talk back to him whatever you do.They most certainly did. A large number of the followers shot their children and then shot themselves, instead of falling into the hands of the government
Why though? Because Koresh had told them that the authorities were coming to kill them. Of course they would rather take their own lives and the lives of their children. Who knows what other crap Koresh told them would happen if the authorities got them.Why would they done that if Koresh had not demonstrated that he was who he claimed to be? Why would they have done that if he had not proven himself to them?
They probably believed that they were going to die but they didn't know that they were going to burn to death. In any case, that still only proves that they believed who he claimed to be. It doesn't mean that he actually was who he claimed to be.Quite a few actually. He still has supporters in America who believe he will return to Earth some day. Some of them never even meet him, yet is message was powerful enough to convince them to dedicate their lives to his following.
And they're entitled to it if they truly believe it. It’s a free country.How could he have known about the Waco siege before it happened Soul Winner?
Read my first reply on this post.That isn't true. Koresh performed miracles to his followers, miracles so convincing that they were prepared to die rather than give up his teachings.
How do you explain that?
What miracles?Exactly the same with Koresh's followers. They witnessed things in Waco that cannot be explained unless he was divine.
Like what? Has anyone testified to these miracles?Henchmen with guns who shot themselves for him. You can't explain that by saying they were motivated by power or greed.
How do you explain that they were prepared to kill themselves, and others, for his teaching?
Because most probably the henchmen knew they were going to get life in jail or the death sentence for their culpability with Koresh.Weren't the early Christians mostly Jews?
Yes, ordinary Jewish people with no predisposition to forsake everything they had, family, friends etc in order to die horrible deaths for a lie that they knew was a lie for someone who they knew was dead and not who He claimed to be in the first place.And you get that from where in Christianity? The genuine belief of the followers
Their claim was that they were eyewitnesses to these events, to which they testified by suffering horrible deaths. The poor folks in Waco suffered horrible deaths because they believe that Koresh was something he wasn't. None of the surviving members ever testified that they had seen Koresh alive again after he died and then suffer a horrible death for that testimony knowing full well it was a lie. Which is what the disciples of Jesus did if what they testified to wasn't true.That has nothing to do with if it is true. God did some pretty sickening things in the Old Testament, but he could because he was God.
He ordered the extermination of a race because of their sin, just like He was going to do to His own people until Moses intervened and talked him out of it, but it only prolonged the inevitable and He ended up wiping them all out over 20 years of age before they entered the promised land and scattered their bones in the wilderness. If God exists and is the giver of all life then it is His prerogative to take that life. If the Hebrews in the Old Testament were not given a divine command to exterminate a race of people then their actions would have been rightly called an evil act but with the presence of a divine command their actions was one of obedience. In any case they never even carried out the order.The Hebrews conquered their neighbours. God has no problem with violence if it is necessary And Koresh speaking for God would know if this was the case.
If Koresh ever even knew anything about Jesus he would have known that Jesus was the incantation of the God of the Old Testament and in order for Him to put away that Old Testament way of ' An eye for an eye' (which leaves everyone blind) He had to fulfil it in Himself, and this He did by nailing it to a cross. By doing this He established a New Testament, and that New Testaments states to put up your sword, for if you live by the sword then you'll die by it. Koresh seemed to have missed that one.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZYThis discussion has been closed.
Advertisement