The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely saying is it more effective to:
1) Criticise every religion one by one
2) Put your own case out for atheism

As Wicknight said I don't have to criticise every religion one by one. The point I am making here is that it is not rational to find the word of 12 guys from 2000 years ago more compelling than the testimony of a million living eye witnesses and the evidence of your own eyes. I can replace "12 guys from 2000 years ago" with any person or group who are now dead and that argument can be applied to every religion in the world. We are pointing out the flaws in religious thinking in general and the specific incidents are all but irrelevant.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of excuse making that is going on for what are 3 straight forward questions.

LOL You have spent the past 3 days dodging my question about why you find an old book more compelling than your own eyes and keep trying to shift the discussion to put the burden of disproof to us and you accuse us of excuse making.

I have answered those question from my position. If you think I'm making excuses then you're again showing that you don't understand my position

Jakkass wrote: »

Even if you make a generic argument against theism, there is no guarantee that it will suit all belief in God.

How is it when atheists have made their argument before? This is ridiculous Sam, absolutely ridiculous.

Oh ffs, I already said that I'm sure atheists have made that argument before but that doesn't mean I have to. I compared this to saying that just because some christians deny evolution doesn't mean you have to and you still haven't got the point. I'm sure you'll recall the Dawkins scale. Here are the last two on the list:

6 De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7 Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

There are people who are a 7 but I am not one of them. I am a 6 but you are trying to make me argue as if I was a 7. Sorry mate I'm not going to do that. I cannot say one single thing for sure about what goes on outside our universe, if indeed anything is going on and I'm not going to try. I think another reference to the god delusion is necessary here because the same point that I am making, that you're not getting, is also made there:

The God Delusion wrote:

My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse. In the rest of the book I am talking only about supernatural gods, of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.

Yes indeed it does have a proven capacity to confuse as it has done here. I am referring only to theistic gods. I don't care whether some kind of divine being exists unless it can rationally and logically be shown to be interacting with its creation in a specific way. A deistic type of god or an unknown god is irrelevant to our existence; believers in deistic gods don't try to tell me who I can marry based on the authority of an old book. I don't care about arguments that only support the idea of a generic creator type being, they are not the reason why I'm an atheist.

I think the problem here stems from the fact that you think that the only step necessary to accept christianity is belief in a higher power so you think that I must have the opposite assumption in order to be an atheist. I'm afraid that's not the case, I don't see that step as particularly relevant because even if there 100% definitely is a higher power that brings me no closer to accepting christianity over JuJuism

philologos

I explained why your question was inadequate. It was comparing something that was verifiable, with something that is unverifiable. Besides, I've been on the answering end of the Q&A type format for quite a long time now. I'm merely suggesting that this goes both ways.

I'm not even suggesting that the burden of proof is on you. It is my role to show you about God, but atheism is a position which requires justification like others. It isn't just if you can criticise Christianity that it leads to atheism. That isn't the only logical conclusion. So, if I hit the position* whereby I think "Oh wait? What was I thinking" (Which you'd love me to come to), what's stopping me from saying that Judaism is more likely instead? The answer is absolutely nothing by my book. That's why atheism needs a justification.

Christians denying evolution is really arbitrary. It isn't as central to it, as this is. You have a big problem if your criticism of Christianity doesn't actually bring people to your position. I don't have a big problem if people deny evolution. They still believe that God created all things, and they still believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. I've explained that there isn't actually that much difference between myself and J C.

If you are a 6 or a 7 it is irrelevant. If you are not a 7, what one has to do is demonstrate how it is more likely that God does not exist than not. This is what William Rowe did. Rowe argues, because evil is present in the world, it does not seem likely that God exists. Whereas Epicurus argued, that because evil is in the world God cannot exist.

Epicurus falls into the 7 camp, while Rowe falls into the 6 or less camp. Your excuse doesn't count.

You love questioning Christians, but when the questioning lands on you you have difficulty with it. Why is that? It appears that you have structured your view concerning this, so as to shield your position from criticism when it is due.

* Taking into account my relationship with God, this isn't really likely.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I explained why your question was inadequate. It was comparing something that was verifiable, with something that is unverifiable.

Yes you keep saying that but that does not shed any light on the situation. You've done the usual Jakkass thing of picking an arbitrary difference between the two things and repeating it as if you're making a point. WHY do you find an unverifiable story more compelling than verifiable evidence? The doesn't make any sense

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not even suggesting that the burden of proof is on you. It is my role to show you about God, but atheism is a position which requires justification like others. It isn't just if you can criticise Christianity that it leads to atheism. That isn't the only logical conclusion. So, if I hit the position* whereby I think "Oh wait? What was I thinking" (Which you'd love me to come to), what's stopping me from saying that Judaism is more likely instead?

1. Because the arguments I am making apply equally well to Judaism. I am not saying that you have no rational reason to pick christianity over other religions, I am saying you have no rational reason to pick any religion over any other
2. Because you have no emotional connection to Judaism.

I have said these two things multiple times and ignoring them will not make them go away

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained that there isn't actually that much difference between myself and J C.

I'm starting to believe that alright

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are a 6 or a 7 it is irrelevant. If you are not a 7, what one has to do is demonstrate how it is more likely that God does not exist than not. This is what William Rowe did. Rowe argues, because evil is present in the world, it does not seem likely that God exists. Whereas Epicurus argued, that because evil is in the world God cannot exist.

And you'd love if I started saying things like that because you have a ready made stock response for it. My way of arguing is not to show that your god is unlikely to exist, it is to show that you have no rational reason to believe that your specific god exists, that you can't argue that it is likely to exist. Why would anyone believe something existed if there was no rational reason to believe it did?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Because the arguments I am making apply equally well to Judaism. I am not saying that you have no rational reason to pick christianity over other religions, I am saying you have no rational reason to pick any religion over any other
2. Because you have no emotional connection to Judaism.

1. Do they? If you discredit the Resurrection, that doesn't necessarily discredit the God of Judaism? The arguments that you make against Christianity are rather specific to that faith. You rarely never argue about Islam in the Islam forum in the same way that you argue against Christianity. Why is this?

You'll have to explain why I have no rational reason to pick any faith over atheism even if you discredit one.

2. Nobody really has an emotional connection to anything until they explore it. However, this is an assumption here. It assumes that people choose faith only based on emotion, which of course is false.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm starting to believe that alright

Leave the ad-hominems out.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And you'd love if I started saying things like that because you have a ready made stock response for it. My way of arguing is not to show that your god is unlikely to exist, it is to show that you have no rational reason to believe that your specific god exists, that you can't argue that it is likely to exist. Why would anyone believe something existed if there was no rational reason to believe it did?

It's simply a real objection to your point of view. I'm not suggesting that you should rehash Rowes argument, but that you should put forward your own which of course I don't have a stock answer.

I've explained to you, that there are people in the same position as you, who have presented arguments for their position. Tell me, how is William Rowe a 7, if he is only arguing that God is not likely to exist given the presence of evil?

Your point of argument is a Q&A session you being the questioner and the theist being the answerer. I don't find this acceptable, and I feel that you must be willing to justify your own view on it's own merit. I've already explained how the Charter shows that it isn't acceptable.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Do they? If you discredit the Resurrection, that doesn't necessarily discredit the God of Judaism?

Oh Jesus tap dancing Christ would you actually read my posts before responding please!

The point I am making is that to any objective observer a million living eye witnesses and the evidence of your own eyes is more compelling than a story in an old book. Whether that book happens to be the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Sutras, Dianetics, the Guru Granth or any other sacred text or supernatural teaching is irrelevant. The point applies to each of them equally. It points out the irrational nature of following all of those religions in one fell swoop. Repeatedly ignoring this fact will not make it go away.

Jakkass wrote: »

The arguments that you make against Christianity are rather specific to that faith. You rarely never argue about Islam in the Islam forum in the same way that you argue against Christianity. Why is this?

I very rarely say anything in this forum either outside of this thread where dissent is tolerated. I don't post in the Islam forum because I don't want infractions. I have had at least one debate with a muslim on AH though.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. Nobody really has an emotional connection to anything until they explore it. However, this is an assumption here. It assumes that people choose faith only based on emotion, which of course is false.

And yet you can't explain why you find unverifiable stories more compelling than the evidence of your own eyes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's simply a real objection to your point of view.

No it's not because it's not my point of view. It might be the point of view of other people who call themsevles atheists but atheism is not a dogma and I don't have to agree with everything that is ever said by anyone who calls themselves an atheist.

That being said, I look at the world and I see no evidence whatsoever of a guiding hand making sure good things happen and I can argue that in a way that makes perfect sense. Note that does not mean I believe there is no guiding hand, just that I see no evidence of one. But I have had exactly that discussion with you many times before and it never goes anywhere. You have your subjective position and I have mine and we just repeat ourselves over and over, just as you like it. You point out all the good in the world, I point out all the bad in the world and you explain away the bad with "god works in mysterious ways" type arguments. As far as I'm concerned that's a total cop out, it's just the theistic way of saying "I don't know" but all we can do in the end is agree to disagree. In order for that argument to go anywhere I would have to completely disprove your god, which obviously is impossible because he has been conveniently placed outside the universe.

The best and most effective way to argue against religion is not show unequivocally show that it is false, it's specifically designed so that can never happen, it's to argue that there is no good reason to think that one specific religion is true, so that's what I do. Rational people do not believe in things when there is no reason to do so, whether they can be disproven or not. It's one thing to believe the world was created by a divine being but it's quite another to believe that one of his angels visited a guy in a cave 1500 years ago, that he wrote some stuff on a stone tablet while appearing as a burning bush or that he's a four armed man with the head of an elephant

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh Jesus tap dancing Christ would you actually read my posts before responding please!

If we're going to have any discussion it should be done under the pretext of respect. If you're not willing to do this let me know. I read your post clearly.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point I am making is that to any objective observer a million living eye witnesses and the evidence of your own eyes is more compelling than a story in an old book. Whether that book happens to be the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Sutras, Dianetics, the Guru Granth or any other sacred text or supernatural teaching is irrelevant. The point applies to each of them equally. It points out the irrational nature of following all of those religions in one fell swoop. Repeatedly ignoring this fact will not make it go away.

It doesn't though, and it isn't a fact. Criticising Christianity, is just that, criticising Christianity. People in the Islam forum do this also. Your arguments are Christianity specific.

This is why I said the following to Wicknight. Is it more effective to criticise each religion one by one, or to present your own case for why atheism is a better option? The latter seems more pragmatic to me.

You seem to have an issue with

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I very rarely say anything in this forum either outside of this thread where dissent is tolerated. I don't post in the Islam forum because I don't want infractions. I have had at least one debate with a muslim on AH though.

I admit on one occasion I came very close to an infraction in the Islam forum, but it was entirely my fault for phrasing a question in a disrespectful manner. Otherwise, I've been free to ask questions about Islamic belief. As long as it is done under the pretext of respect it's fine.

Dissent is tolerated here but within the confines of respect for other users and posters. Other atheist posters manage to do this. The Charter is entirely reasonable.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And yet you can't explain why you find unverifiable stories more compelling than the evidence of your own eyes

Your use of the plural is unhelpful. I find Christianity more reasonable than other faiths because I feel the evidence is stronger. Now, if I am going to present a case for why Christianity is more reasonable than Islam or any other faith, I will do so in the Islam forum, or with believers of that faith, not with you because you don't have any real interest in that faith to begin with. That's my policy. I haven't wavered on it so far.

This isn't just Sam Vimes specific. When discussing the burqa on After Hours yesterday, I quoted a passage from the Qur'an, I did not interpret that passage, nor did I attempt to argue against it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it's not because it's not my point of view. It might be the point of view of other people who call themsevles atheists but atheism is not a dogma and I don't have to agree with everything that is ever said by anyone who calls themselves an atheist.

Is it not true that you think that it is unlikely that God exists. I'm fairly sure I've seen you post such in the past.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That being said, I look at the world and I see no evidence whatsoever of a guiding hand making sure good things happen and I can argue that in a way that makes perfect sense. Note that does not mean I believe there is no guiding hand, just that I see no evidence of one. But I have had exactly that discussion with you many times before and it never goes anywhere. You have your subjective position and I have mine and we just repeat ourselves over and over, just as you like it. You point all the good in the world, I point out all the bad in the world and you explain away the bad with "god works in mysterious ways" type arguments. As far as I'm concerned that's a total cop out, it's just the theistic way of saying "I don't know" but all we can do in the end is agree to disagree. In order for that argument to go anywhere I would have to completely disprove your god, which obviously is impossible because he has been conveniently placed outside the universe.

There we go. This is a positive argument. After all that, we have a noseeum argument.

You've strawmanned my position by saying "God works in mysterious ways" though. I try not to use that response. There are certain things I don't know about God from Scripture, but where it does relate to the Bible I do stick to the subject at hand.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The best and most effective way to argue against religion is not show unequivocally show that it is false, it's specifically designed so that can never happen, it's to argue that there is no good reason to think that one specific religion is true, so that's what I do. Rational people do not believe in things when there is no reason to do so, whether they can be disproven or not

I have reasons for believing. Therefore I would fit into the rational person category here.

I think it's absolute nonsense that you can define that theists are automatically irrational, and atheists are rational. I wouldn't view it as being as black and white. Apparently you do. Then again, you have rather strong views in comparison to a lot of other posters.

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do you mean? The variations in evolution are completely random and the vast majority are bad and cause diseases or deformities such as webbed fingers. It works because a small but significant number of them are "good" for the environment and the ones that have these "good" variations survive better. A good example is the peppered moth. During the industrial revolution all the trees were covered in soot. During this time one of them had a random mutation that caused it to be born black and because the trees were black it couldn't be seen by predators, survived better and spread its genes further. There is nothing inherently better about being black, it was just better for the environment at the time

There really is no such thing as "random" though, is there?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If we're going to have any discussion it should be done under the pretext of respect. If you're not willing to do this let me know. I read your post clearly.


It doesn't though, and it isn't a fact. Criticising Christianity, is just that, criticising Christianity. People in the Islam forum do this also. Your arguments are Christianity specific.

This is why I said the following to Wicknight. Is it more effective to criticise each religion one by one, or to present your own case for why atheism is a better option? The latter seems more pragmatic to me.

What I said was that to any objective observer a million living eye witnesses and the evidence of your own eyes is more compelling than a story in an old book. There is nothing specific to christianity in that statement, it applies to any unverifiable claim and your relentless insistence to the contrary is absolutely ****ing mind boggling. Please explain how it's specific to christianity rather than just saying it is over and over

Jakkass wrote: »

Your use of the plural is unhelpful. I find Christianity more reasonable than other faiths because I feel the evidence is stronger. Now, if I am going to present a case for why Christianity is more reasonable than Islam or any other faith, I will do so in the Islam forum, or with believers of that faith, not with you because you don't have any real interest in that faith to begin with. That's my policy. I haven't wavered on it so far.

I didn't ask you why you find it more reasonable than Islam, I asked you why you find it more reasonable than a guy you could go and talk to today if you so chose.

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it not true that you think that it is unlikely that God exists. I'm fairly sure I've seen you post such in the past.

Again the confusion between a generic creator and a specific god. I think it is unlikely that your specific god exists because the case for it is so weak but I can't say much about anything that may or may not exist outside the universe beyond that.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's absolute nonsense that you can define that theists are automatically irrational, and atheists are rational. I wouldn't view it as being as black and white. Apparently you do.

Wow, what a straw man

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

There really is no such thing as "random" though, is there?

How do you mean?

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do you mean?

Qualifying anything with the term "random" is the same as saying "it's just because." Just because you don't see the reason behind something doesn't mean it isn't caused.

All events that are considered random do have a cause, whether you know them or not. We just do not know all the factors involved in every situation. So, evolution of any kind is not random at all. It's doing exactly what it should do given the circumstances for each individual case.

Random mutations are not random. It is always the result of some damage, deficiency, or any outside force causing something else to perform abnormally.

At the lowest level, if a protein "doesn't do it's job," then it, once again, is because of some prior condition. DNA copying imperfectly is not random at all. Cellular nutrition is key. Cells make errors because they are imperfect entities. There is nothing random about it.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

Qualifying anything with the term "random" is the same as saying "it's just because." Just because you don't see the reason behind something doesn't mean it isn't caused.

All events that are considered random do have a cause, whether you know them or not. We just do not know all the factors involved in every situation. So, evolution of any kind is not random at all. It's doing exactly what it should do given the circumstances for each individual case.

Random mutations are not random. It is always the result of some damage, deficiency, or any outside force causing something else to perform abnormally.

At the lowest level, if a protein "doesn't do it's job," then it, once again, is because of some prior condition. DNA copying imperfectly is not random at all. Cellular nutrition is key. Cells make errors because they are imperfect entities. There is nothing random about it.

Well yes, if you know the position and velocity of every single particle in the universe at all times then it is always possible to predict what's going to happen but without that knowledge it's as close to random as possible.

Are you trying to make the point that you think god was involved in evolution? That's a nice unfalsifiable idea but evolution does not require a god, it can happen quite easily without any divine involvement so I see no reason to posit divine involement. I could also say that I believe gravity works through invisible pixies pulling people down and no one could prove me wrong but that doesn't mean I have good reason to believe it

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well yes, if you know the position and velocity of every single particle in the universe at all times then it is always possible to predict what's going to happen but without that knowledge it's as close to random as possible.

Actually Sam, this is still up for debate. Even if you knew all the properties, positions and laws that govern each entity is it still possible to have a random event?
The answer is we don't know, but for Humans and science in particular assumptions that some stuff are random has lead to many practical modelling techniques and applications.

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well yes, if you know the position and velocity of every single particle in the universe at all times then it is always possible to predict what's going to happen but without that knowledge it's as close to random as possible.

Which is still just as meaningless.

Are you trying to make the point that you think god was involved in evolution? That's a nice unfalsifiable idea but evolution does not require a god, it can happen quite easily without any divine involvement so I see no reason to posit divine involement. I could also say that I believe gravity works through invisible pixies pulling people down and no one could prove me wrong but that doesn't mean I have good reason to believe it

Nope, I'm just saying that what you believe in is based on ideas such as "random" and "chance," which both happen to be imaginary, or have meaning only because you know nothing. "I don't know what caused it, so it must be God random."

I'll give you some credit, though. This falls in line with the atheist mantra of, "we admit that we just don't know." So, random = "I don't know."

Evolution "appears" to have no ordered or guided process, which is perfect for your belief in no God.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually Sam, this is still up for debate. Even if you knew all the properties, positions and laws that govern each entity is it still possible to have a random event?
The answer is we don't know, but for Humans and science in particular assumptions that some stuff are random has lead to many practical modelling techniques and applications.

By definition, a random event would not be possible under those criteria, or it would depend on the magical force known as "chance."

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

Evolution "appears" to have no ordered or guided process, which is perfect for your belief in no God.

Not true, the mutations that evolution selects from appear to be random. Evolution itself is an ordered process.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Not true, the mutations that evolution selects from appear to be random. Evolution itself is an ordered process.

Fair enough. I wasn't intending to go into defining what evolution is, and I may have made an inaccurate statement there. We can agree that evolution works through natural selection which is able to "select" because of the variations in lifeforms. These variations, and their "random" nature, are what I was hoping to discuss. If this is OT, I apologize.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

The reason why I argue for the existence of a Creator first, is because it is one of the prerequisites for the rest of the argument. I made this clear. It's clear that not only do you not listen to me when I am suggesting why your approach is wrong, you also don't listen when I suggest why I argue certain things.

I even explained to liamw that I used a top down approach in dealing with this. If we cannot agree on the basics, there is zero point in arguing about much more complicated. I know what it is like when we attempt to deal with what is more complicated.

Call it a form of theistic reductionism in an argument. Go from what is small to construct what is big.

See, here's the thing. You said that you used a top down approach but even when we agree to assume that there is indeed a supernatural creator of the universe, you still haven't shown how you made the leap from 'generic creator' to 'specific God of Christianity'.

Your deistic style arguments could apply to any religion or supernatural belief system at all. When you made the inference: Creator God exists, therefore resurrection is not as unlikely, you failed to show why that argument does not apply to all supernatural claims.

My opinion is that you use a bottom up system. You accepted the Bible and Christian God first, and then went back up to use deistic arguments to somehow make your God, and the associated supernatural events, more likely.
I could be wrong, but maybe you could point out to me how you used the top-down approach.

J C

liamw wrote: »

See, here's the thing. You said that you used a top down approach but even when we agree to assume that there is indeed a supernatural creator of the universe, you still haven't shown how you made the leap from 'generic creator' to 'specific God of Christianity'.

Your deistic style arguments could apply to any religion or supernatural belief system at all. When you made the inference: Creator God exists, therefore resurrection is not as unlikely, you failed to show why that argument does not apply to all supernatural claims.

My opinion is that you use a bottom up system. You accepted the Bible and Christian God first, and then went back up to use deistic arguments to somehow make your God, and the associated supernatural events, more likely.
I could be wrong, but maybe you could point out to me how you used the top-down approach.

...there is only one God that I am aware of who claims to be the sole Creator God of the Universe and of all life therein ... and He is the Monotheist God of the Bible.

...so once Creation is proven as a scientific fact ... and it has been ... then this is very significant evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible.

...equally, scientific proof of Noah's Flood also provides further substantial evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible.

...you are correct, that these scientifically proven facts don't provide absolute proof for the existence of the God of the Bible ... just like 'Doubting Thomas' ... we would need to scientifically 'place our hands in His wounds' for that!!!

...we must ultimately believe on Jesus Christ through faith alone ... for that is how He has mandated it ... but it is a very well founded faith, based on scientific evidence for His existence matching His description as the Creator God of the Bible.

...on the other hand, believing yourself to be a direct descendant of Pondslime ... or any of the other myths that Evolutionists confuse themselves with ... has about as much logic as a belief in the 'tooth fairy'!!!!:D:)

...so here is the stark choice facing you ... believe on Jesus Christ to Save you ... or continue to believe in your very own version of the 'tooth fairy'!!!:eek::):D

J C

chozometroid wrote: »

Fair enough. I wasn't intending to go into defining what evolution is, and I may have made an inaccurate statement there. We can agree that evolution works through natural selection which is able to "select" because of the variations in lifeforms. These variations, and their "random" nature, are what I was hoping to discuss. If this is OT, I apologize.

...the PROBLEM for 'evolution' has never been with the 'selection' bit ... the problem has ALWAYS been with explaining the spontaneous production of the Complex Specified Information upon which NS acts!!

... rather than providing an explantion (because they can't) the evolutionists go into denial at this point ...
... they first deny that CSI exists ... and when it is proven beyond all doubt that CSI does exist, they then 'change tack' and claim that CSI can be produced by a combination of time and mistakes!!!!
... interestingly, evolutionists never place such faith in the power of time and mistakes to do anything else positive in their lives ... for example, they don't drive in a haphazard fashion, thereby allowing time and mistakes to eventually get them to their destination. They are sensible enough to realise that such a strategy would 'come a cropper' under the first lorry that they met ... thereby ending any possibility of completing their journey ... the same unfortunate out-come would also occur with any biological system that relied on a combination of time and mistakes to do anything useful!!!:eek::):D

... evolutionism is based on the 'science' of the 'tooth fairy' ... as Prof Gould has confirmed, the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution is so bad that evolutionists never see the very process they profess to study!!!!!:D:)

... this is the pitiful intellectual state of modern evolutionism!!!!:eek::D

Genghiz Cohen

Hang on J C, you believe that micro evolution is possible, it explains the diversity of life and such.

Remember;
"[...]the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite"

But if the chances of a useful trait being created is next to nil, then why are the chances of any trait being enhanced any better? It's the same thing happening, DNA is replicated incorrectly.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

See, here's the thing. You said that you used a top down approach but even when we agree to assume that there is indeed a supernatural creator of the universe, you still haven't shown how you made the leap from 'generic creator' to 'specific God of Christianity'.

I've explained this already liamw, it's getting a bit tedious now. First we need to establish the existence of a Creator, second we confirm how reliable Biblical claims are. I personally won't be doing the latter as there is absolutely no point in doing so with people who still can't get past the first hurdle if you will.

liamw wrote: »

Your deistic style arguments could apply to any religion or supernatural belief system at all. When you made the inference: Creator God exists, therefore resurrection is not as unlikely, you failed to show why that argument does not apply to all supernatural claims.

Just because on believes in a Creator God doesn't make them a deist. Deism, while not quite as absurd as atheism in my eyes, is rather absurd indeed. Why on earth would God create the world and tip toe away? The painting is the work of the painter, and the painter takes pride in it. If we are to truly believe that the universe is a wonderful creation, it should surely bear testament to the work of the Creator, and the Creator should care for it.

liamw wrote: »

My opinion is that you use a bottom up system. You accepted the Bible and Christian God first, and then went back up to use deistic arguments to somehow make your God, and the associated supernatural events, more likely.
I could be wrong, but maybe you could point out to me how you used the top-down approach.

I've explained numerous times already liamw. There's absolutely nothing deistic about it. Deism doesn't make the concept any more reasonable than a theistic God, rather less reasonable.

Turtwig

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Hang on J C, you believe that micro evolution is possible, it explains the diversity of life and such.

Remember;
"[...]the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite"

But if the chances of a useful trait being created is next to nil, then why are the chances of any trait being enhanced any better? It's the same thing happening, DNA is replicated incorrectly.

... so-called 'micro-evolution' is possible because it involves selection/isolation within the pre-existing functional genetic diversity (CSI) infused into Created Kinds at the moment of their creation.:D:)

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because one believes in a Creator God doesn't make them a deist. Deism, while not quite as absurd as atheism in my eyes, is rather absurd indeed. Why on earth would God create the world and tip toe away? The painting is the work of the painter, and the painter takes pride in it. If we are to truly believe that the universe is a wonderful creation, it should surely bear testament to the work of the Creator, and the Creator should care for it.

... God might have no interest in His Creation ... but His Word says different ... something we must trust, with faith alone!!!

You are correct that it makes sense that a personal God would have a personal interest in the people that He Created ... but it is not beyond all doubt that this must be the case ... again, our only assurance is His Word and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, who confirmed His interest in each Human Being.

We must ultimately believe on Jesus Christ through faith alone ... for that is how He has mandated it ... but it is a very well founded faith, based on the scientific forensic evidence for His existence matching His description as the Creator God of the Bible.:D

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained numerous times already liamw. There's absolutely nothing deistic about it. Deism doesn't make the concept any more reasonable than a theistic God, rather less reasonable.

...there are Deists who are Creation Scientists, just like there are also Muslim and Jewish Creation Scientists.

The only totally incompatible belief with Creation is evolutionism ... and the reason is very simple ... evolutionism was invented to give a semblance of intellectual credibility to Atheism.

...I'm sorry Jackass, but your idea of a 'shake' of Creation here ... and a 'dollop' of evolution there ... simply doesn't 'wash' in the cold light of day ... it neither matches the Word of God in the Bible ... not observed reality ... which confirms a CSI-rich finished Creation.

... equally, as the previous five pages have proven ... Theistic Evolution 'cuts no ice' with Militant Atheists ... they simply scoff at the nievety of the Theistic Evolutionists ... whom they sarcastically refer to as believers in a 'God of the Gaps'!!!:)

philologos

How familiar are you with the Hebrew word "yom" J C? It's a key word in the Genesis 1 passage.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

..interesting that it is a cartoon that is used, presumably scripted by an Evolutionist, to make Evolutionism look 'good' ...

Unfortunately all of the REAL debates turn out very differently ... and the Creation Scientists win 'hands down' ... another reason, presumably, why the evolutionists used a fictional cartoon for this supposed 'debate' ... rather than excerpts from the real thing!!!!

Ironically the 'tornado in a junkyard producing a jumbo jet' analogy for the likelihood of the evolution of higher life forms, including organs, like the Human Eye, was first coined by Prof Sir Fred Hoyle (who was a former atheist and evolutionist) ...

The first instance of Prof Hoyle's use of that metaphor was reported in the science journal Nature in 1981:
"Hoyle said last week that ... the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10^40 000 - representing the specificity with which some 2,000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10^20 nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length .... The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'. " (Hoyle, F., in "Hoyle on evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105).

Prof Sir Anthony Flew was once the leading light of British Atheism, in a similar position on the atheistic spectrum as Prof Dawkins now occupies ... only to abandon it all when he studied the work of Sir Fred Hoyle ... who was also a leading Materialist before he lost his faith in Atheism due to his complete inability to explain how the CSI in living systems could possibly arise without an intelligent input.

... and here is James Perloff ... who became an atheist as a result of being indoctrinated with Atheism during Evolution lessons in school ... and subsequently became a Creationist and a Christian after studying Creation Science books!!!:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWthzqE_h0

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Prof Sir Fred Hoyle

Isn't Hoyle responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" and causing all the popular misconceptions about it?

philologos

What's this CSI that keeps cropping up?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

What's this CSI that keeps cropping up?

Urgh, don't ask.

Complex Specified Information. Sam Vimes debunked it about 10 ten pages back.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because on believes in a Creator God doesn't make them a deist. Deism, while not quite as absurd as atheism in my eyes, is rather absurd indeed. Why on earth would God create the world and tip toe away? The painting is the work of the painter, and the painter takes pride in it. If we are to truly believe that the universe is a wonderful creation, it should surely bear testament to the work of the Creator, and the Creator should care for it.

Normally I just lurk in this thread and read but this paragraph needs calling out a little.

Your analogy is totally false.

It would be more apt to say that the painting is the work of a painter, and the painter takes pride in it (the deadliest sin I assume?). How and ever, even if we accept all of that part of the analogy to be true then the Earth is a proton in an atom in a molecule of one tiny piece of paint on that 100ft x 100ft painting. Does the painter lavish such attention on that?