₦airaland Forum

Reverend:
The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

This is incorrect, the existence of Yahweh is logically impossible, just as cubic spheres are logically impossible. The existence of Invisible pink unicorns on the other hand has a probability of non zero and they are thus more likely to exist than Yahweh.

stimulus:
Right, after the televised speech of "this idiot", the terrorists on the other side are still with us today and multiplying - NO??

And that's a reason to accept the idiocy of Robertson?

thx dblock, I appreciate your last reply. We come down to the core of the argument .

dblock:
Those who have lost all faith are lost forever.

Maybe, unfortunately I'm incapable of faith

dblock:
See, I could be wrong and you could be a genius, but you are thick so you do not acknowledge potential alternatives.

That's a false dichotomy, it's not either wrong or being a genius. Anyway, I do acknowledge potential alternatives, but the onus is up to those proposing these alternatives to substantiate and bring evidence for that alternative.
See, I'm an agnostic (weak) atheist. I do not believe in (a) god(s), but I also acknowledge that I cannot obtain definitive knowledge of God's existence either way.
If I look at the different alternative world views, then I have to conclude that what Christianity offers is not very convincing to me

dblock:
I am not a therapist, so I don't know why you are so secluded, but for your own good consider the things around you, you never know,

Why do you immediately assume there's something wrong with me because I don't follow your point of view, it could just as easily be the other way around.

dblock:
I might be the Genius and you might be the looney.

Even under the assumption you are right, that would still not make you the genius an me the looney. I see no reason to follow your religious point of view and I want to stress the word reason here, because that's ultimately what makes me tick.

dblock:
I have answered with as much intellect as possible, considering that Religion is not based on regular observations, but predominantly on faith.

Here you reach the core of the argument. On rational grounds, one cannot come to Christianity, but on emotional grounds I can see very well why people arrive at their religious belief; I don't dismiss people that arrive at a religious belief on emotional grounds and I don't even say that such grounds are less valid than other grounds. What I do dislike is that people say that their religious belief is rational. Anyone that claims his religious belief is rational is intellectually dishonest.

dblock:
If it comes down to a Ocham's razor scenario, yours is obviously the favoured story, but that doesn't make it true.

Your right there, it doesn't make it true, only more likely.

dblock:
Hope to continue this little debate of ours, but please emphasize when you reply.

I'm sorry but I don't see what you're trying to say here.

dblock:
Once again Pastor Nferyn answered my well research work, with the usual Two worded Mumble.

Indeed, I'm probably the best example of someone that never fails to answer with only a two word mumble. If you would go through my list of posts, you will definitely see that I never utter more than two words in reply to others.
Fact is, some writings actually only deserve two words, yet I still reply in detail

dblock:
What exactly is TOE, and where does tee trunks come from.

You've been long enough on those threads to know that TOE stands for Theory of Evolution, I would have thought. Apparently I was mistaken. And the tree trunk was referring your incessant urge to remove the splinter out of someone else's eye, while ignoring the log, or rather tree trunk in your own.

dblock:
In your last post you haven'y answered anthing, ut simply replied, with No and Yes wherever convinient.

I have already answered all your objections, either when they were uttered by you or by someone else. Is it my fault that you fail to read the preceding pages and/or other threads on the subject?

dblock:
Your reasoning gets more pathetic everytime. You always speak of assertions and "Begging the question" whatever that means.

Google and a dictionary are powerful tools if you care to use them. Maybe assuming the consequent would be a better description of the logical phalacy you always fall for?

dblock:
Well I simply pointed out the obvious this time around, and you couldn't even reply to it with the least bit of intellect, but with mumbles. You're getting Senile, men, take a break.

And now all of a sudden slurs and innuendo are considered an acceptable mode of argumentation, not very Christian of you.

spoilt:
@ ikomi and nferyn

you have got to be kidding me. don't you see that because of the attention white women get with all that hair we assume that maybe if you can get those luscious flowing locks you can be better accepted. so we spend a fortune on fake hair from korea.

If you fall for this, you must lack some self-confidence, don't you?

spoilt:
black men don't even love our nappy hair. with all the hair extensions we still don't make the cut. think about when that gloriously nappy hair is brought to light like the jackdaw. then you are labeled afrocentric, bohemian or whatever else. just for having your real hair.?

I think those men that have problems with your natural hair have got some serious issues and I wonder even if you should give them a second look (unless of course you want to play counsellor as well). Different hair types require different treatments. I'm digressing here, but a few days ago I almost went into an argument with someone from the after-school care center where the kids go. Told them to be very careful not to let Aicha play unattended in the sand, as it really hard to wash and come her hair and you don't want to do it twice a day. To no avail though. Those people just don't understand.

spoilt:
when ive worn my natural hair nappy as the day i was born what have i gotten from black brothers? "can't you get your hair done?"
i reply "kunta, my hair is done! this is its natural texture. as if they don't know nappy hair when they see it.

I wonder, is this kind of reaction typical for the US?

ikamefa:
y'all know we 've got kinky (curly) hair, that can't be managed easily so what are we supposed to do?

Braid it or keep it short, anything but those awful attachments. I first thought it was only me that complained about that because I'm a white Belgian, but apparently some black men don't find it very attractive either.

Ikomi:
First is the hair attachments. Most men love to see there women in there natural beauty but when u start looking artificial, for most responsible men its a turn off.

lmao now there you're on to something. I keep telling my wife to get rid of these attachments, but she won't listen

This is a pretty interesting thread. I must say that my experience in these issues is rather limited, but there's one thing that I really don't understand.
Maybe the issue is limited to Belgium, but I'm always stupefied when I see the average black men / white women relationship. I cannot understand why usually handsome men choose the lowest of the lowest when it comes to dating white women. Where's those guy's self-respect

It seems like this is turning into a war of attrition, whereby the outnumbered naturalists are not subject to an oppositions with superior arms (arguments), but rather are facing an opponent with superior numbers. It's a constant barrage of outmoded, outdated, long debunked, but above all poor arguments we're facing here. It takes not more than 1 minute to utter a nonsensicle argument, but unfortunately debunking such an argument takes far more time and effort

dblock:
The earth is the optimum, place in our universe where life can be supported.

this you cannot possibly know. It is currently the only place we know of where our kind of life can exist, but you have no grounds whatsoever to make the claim that it is the optimum place in our universe in support of life. You're clearly pulling your argument from a very dark place.

dblock:
That in itself is a one a billion equation,

How do you come to that conclusion? Explain your equation.

dblock:
but that isn't the end of it, we the most intelligent beings on this planet also happen to possess the ability to either thrive and prosper, or suffer and Falter. The animals that accompany us on this planet also have skills of their own.

Yes and?

dblock:
The earth's magnetic field prevents us from cosmic bombardment and certain disintegration.

yes, and?

dblock:
The orbital shape of this planet, ensures that the temperture on this planet is suitanle for life.

For our kind of life. Other kinds of life could very well have evolved under different conditions.

dblock:
The orbital speed, durartion, Angle of Rotation and Planetary rotation of this planet are fashioned effectively and efficiently to sustatin life

Yes obviously life evolved on this planet to optimally sustain itself under the conditions it finds itself in. How can you get any more circular in your reasoning?

dblock:
The earth is self sustaining.

No it isn't.

dblock:
If any of these factors where different, life would either be inexistent or chaotic and full of misery beyound comprehension.

And you come to that conclusion based on what exactly?

dblock:
Yes it is true that all these things could stiill have being created by luck, but the probabilty of all of these factors to be present; is impossible unless They were actually fashioned by an onlooker.

male bovine excrement. You can apply Drake's equation just as easily to earth as you can apply it to other planets in the universe. Life was not unlikely to have evolved somewhere in the universe. We happen to be on a place where it did.

dblock:
The earth has endured many disasters that could have easily destroyed this optimum enclave of ours ultimately. Many planets and satellites(moons) in our solar system are battered by Asteroids on a daily basis, and the earth could have being destroyed by calender comets, but due to the earth's magnetic field and it's distance from The sun, the earth lives on. This suggests that the earth was not just created but created, or shall I say "designed" to endure!

Only in your over active anthropocentric imagination it is.

dblock:
Bliblical Sources say that the earth was created and in due time, it will be destroyed by God so that a New earth may be created. There are so many ways that the earth could be destroyed, yet this planet hangs on firm, as if awaiting that designated day.

Water, puddle, Adams anyone?

dblock:

Again, this sentence is rather hermetic, but I will try to make sense out of it anyway. I assume you mean to say that I need to explain where the options come from on which natural selection works?
1. natural selection isn't the only mechanism in evolution
2. natural selection works on natural genomic variability, which is mainly caused by 2 processes: sexual recombination and mutations. Mutations can have several causes, but the main cause of mutations is DNA copying errors.
Upon that variability, the processes of natural selection and sexual selection work. This is basically what evolution is; a change of allele frequencies within populations over time.

Yes a change in Allele Frequencies due to changes in Medical exposure or a change in Environment in General can spur a biological change, but is this really how humans came to be? From changes in the enviroment and adaptations?

Short answer: yes.

dblock:
If so then why haven't major signs of evolution or at least signs of the begining of evolution in animals or in Humans appeared.

there have, only you're not willing to see them.

dblock:
This period of great technological advancement, I believe is one of the sagas in earth's history with the most change.

Indeed and our point was what exactly?

dblock:
Can you reason or is your judgement conveniently based on a selective Hypothesis??

There's a tree trunk growing in your right eye, sir.

dblock:
Or are you oblivious to the events that are occuring in our blessed planet. Humans are releasing Toxic waste, clearing natural habitats yet Animals have showed no signs of adaptations or biological alterations. When we alter a natural environment, either by development or simply destruction in general, the inhabitants of the area don't attain new biological qualities but simply just die off.

You don't understand one iota of the TOE, so don't even try. Cats don't turn into dogs and definitely not overnight.

dblock:
The people of today aren't living longer because of Allele changes, but simply because of Medical breakthroughs and advancements.

Who ever said such a ridiculous thing. Trying to pull down straw men, are we?

dblock:
It has not being proven that medicine over a extended period of time can make humans immune to a disease or Virus. Distributing vaccines and administering it, makes the individual immune to the disease being tackled but doesn't make offspring any less subjected to the disease (Except for maybe due to the disease being less Ubiquitos, but that's a different story).

Where exactly in the TOE did you find that kind of prediction implied. If you don't have the intellectual fortitude of actually learning what the TOE is about, don't even try arguing against it.

dblock:
To summarize, the DNA structure of Humans isn't changing, so how can Evolution be a reality.

Where in the TOE does it say that the DNA [b]structure [/b]should change? You're pathetic.

dblock:
If you are still in doubt, take the Plague (A.KA, the black death) No that Virus isn't long gone, scientists have the virus stored in three locations world wide, for potential reference, and the disease is as deadly to humans today as it was when it first appeared. Yes we would probably last longer, than people back then, but that is not because of any immunity, but due to the Medicines and vaccines that we have today. It doesn't make the Virus any less threatining, but simply numbs it.

You're talking out of your rear end again, see http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_00/bone_dna.shtml

dblock:
Evolution should be held as credible as Scientology.

Your straw man version of evolution is indeed as credible as Scientology (which is not much less credible than Christianity by the way)

Bobbyaf:
I doubt if you spent the time viewing the videos before making those remarks. Why not take the time to view them carefully for yourself. View them independently and then after we can discuss what was presented in a reasonable manner. I know you're a sensible person so act like one.

Greater minds than mine have investigated the so called polonium halo's and the conclusions Gentry draws from them are a selective use of evidence and a failure to see the other, more parsimonious explanations for the same phenomenon. Moreover, the fact that those phenomena are not uniformly found in all granite formations can be considered a falsification criterium for the instantaneous creation hypothesis.

Bobbyaf:
Besides, you often make the claim that science is all about empirical observation. Well, here it is! Dr. Robert Ventry has challenged the status quo and has succeeded. If that weren't the case his works would not have been published in peer-reviewed science journals, and hence his works cannot be labeled "lies"

You don't know what you're talking about. His peer reviewed work does not include the conclusions he draws supporting YEC, but only the findings of his original research. Another l[i]ying for jesus[/i] tactic?

Bobbyaf:
Anyone who views those videos with an open mind could not rationally walk away saying what you said.

You can open your mind so much that your brain drops out.

somze:
I did give evidence - humans.

You just stated that humans were designed, but you didn't give any evidence to support that claim, apart from some spurious appearance of design, an appearance that can easily be explained by naturalistic means. Assertion really isn't a replacement for proper argumentation.

somze:
it does not fall due to biological complexity, kindly explain how.

I don't understand this sentence: what is it, what do you mean by biological complexity [/i]and [i]what [/i]am I to explain?

somze:
natural selection only comes to play when there are actually options does not explain how the options got to the position where they are naturally selected

Again, this sentence is rather hermetic, but I will try to make sense out of it anyway. I assume you mean to say that I need to explain where the options come from on which natural selection works?
1. natural selection isn't the only mechanism in evolution
2. natural selection works on natural genomic variability, which is mainly caused by 2 processes: sexual recombination and mutations. Mutations can have several causes, but the main cause of mutations is DNA copying errors.
Upon that variability, the processes of natural selection and sexual selection work. This is basically what evolution is; a change of allele frequencies within populations over time.

somze:
for example survival of the fittest claims the fittest survive but does not show how it became the fittest in the first place.

I already explained the processes that lead to genomic variability. That variability is expressed in the phenotypes of the organisms. Fitness is a function of how well the phenotype leads to reproductive success within a specific habitat: the fittest are simply the ones that are reproductively most successful.

somze:
That flaws your logic.

How so?

somze:
The rest of what you say are mere speculations that are no different from religious beliefs, if not can you kindly show proof?

Care to expand on that statement and, once more, proof is for mathematics and logic. You don't prove scientific theories

somze:
The universe is both orderly and designed that is why one aspect clearly depends on another as is seen in our solar system.

That's pretty vague. Can you put some more meat on the bones of your statements.

somze:
The earth is designed.

Or so you say. Care to bring some evidence?

somze:
For you to claim our universe or earth is orderly and not designed is clearly laughable

Why?

somze:

Yet we have countless places in the universe where those conditions aren't present. Simple probability in the face of the vastness of the universe can account for the fact that our planet is suited for our form of life. Your argument is similar to this: The chance of winning the lottery are so staggeringly small that one cannot win the lottery. If there are enough people participating, someone is bound to win the lottery, you know. I won't touch on the creation/evolution thingy, as you'll bring forward your evidence for ID in another thread, aren't you?

Proves that the earth is designed specifically. Probability? Show where you mathematically got that idea because i can likely say that with thesame probability in the infinite universe there should be thousands of earths, aliens and flying saucers, if not millions.

The main source concerning the probability of extra terrestrial life is best captured in Drake's equation. Anyway, it could very well be that there exist multiple extra terrestrial civilisations concurrently, but due to the vastness of space the chance of these civilisations communicating with each other is very small indeed.

somze:
Water exists, has properties to accounting for it being in a puddle, puddle space can contain. We (humans) have capacity to think - points to design

No it points to a feeble anthropocentric view whereby everything that fits us, necessarily must be made for us. If you study the process of evolution, you will notice that, by necessity, all organisms are fit to their environment.
If you would look into the mind of the Creator, if he exists, we would notice that he is far more interested in lower organisms than humans. When asked what could be inferred from the mind of the Creator, biologist JBS Haldane replied that he has [i]an inordinate fondness for beetles. You could take the argument even further and infer that not humans and not even beetles where what the creator had in mind when thinking about the pinnacle of creation, but rather bacteria, as they are really the 'masters' of the living world.

somze:
Will search, i remember reading this sometime back.

Be careful to properly source that quote, as creationist advocates are notorious for out of context quote mining and making up quotes.

ricadelide:
I knew you'd say that. That's not entirely true. I don't reject evidence, rather i'd hold the evidence to more scrutiny. The same evidence can be presented before two different people and their deductions could be different. For example, the evidence of comparative genomics in terms of the similarity of DNA across species is true. To a naturalist who doesn't beleive in God, it suggests that there is a common ancestor. To one who does, it illustrates that the creator left his blueprint in all his creatures - making different species with essentially the same material and varying the things he chooses to.

How then do you explain the findings from the link on the [url=http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html]comparison of the human and great ape chromosomes[/url]?

ricadelide:
what baffles me is the way in which similarities are assumed to mean commonality of descent - that's the same idea behind bacteria and the mito - that assumption is only necessary when you rule out a creator.

I thought that Margulis' endosymbiotic theory partially undermines common descent in it's simplistic tree of life representation . Anyway, the findings from genomic comparison are perfectly in line with the predictions of the TOE and if they weren't, they would be the ideal way of falsifying the TOE. Also, how come another finding of comparative genomics, namely the predictions on speciation events coming from mutation rates of non-coding DNA perfectly match with the dates obtained from radiometric dating of fossils?

ricadelide:
micro-evolution seems to be more rapidly occuring in microorganisms than in higher species. Someone will make a deduction about that in a way that favours evolution. In my case, i have premises that make me see it in a totally different light.

Care to expand?

ricadelide:
I enjoy your posts as well - because i can understand your position. However, I'd explain my grouses with the TOE in much detail later. I've spent too much time online today though; av'got papers to read.

Looking forward to it.

somze:
@nferyn
how u can pick on a few words and overlook the passage is beyond me. At first you claim there was NO explotion at all now its an explosion that was not chaotic or disorderly - let me get this straight. We have a highly densed nuclues (proton, cosmic egg, whatever) at a very high temperature and pressure expanding rapidly through explosion and the result is unchaotic and orderly?

Playing the semantics game, are we? The Big Bang was nothing like we, as ordinary human beings, can imagine. The coming into existence and rapid expansion of spacetime is not comparable at all to anything we would ordinarily call an explosion. Ask that to any physicists and he/she will tell you as much.
Your - or rather Wayne Jackson's - argument was entirely based on analogy. He was comparing the consequences of an ordinary explosion to the results of the Big Bang, a deeply flawed and misleading analogy. Regular explosions only happen within the existing spacetime. The usage of the word explosion within a popular scientific and educational context is permissible as the goal is to to elucidate a complex phenomenon. Expanding the use of that analogy beyond that context is disingenuous, especially if it is not treated as analogous, but rather as synonymous.

somze:
You would not know science if it hits you in the face.

Yeah right, and you would, no doubt.

somze:

Either you accept the scientific method to arrive at truth or you don't. But if you do, you have to accept one of the basic principles of the scientific method as well, the criterium of falsifiability of hypotheses. You then should accept any attempt at falsification of your hypothesis on the basis of how well the evidence lines up with your hypothesis and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you should accept it to be falsified. You cannot pick and choose the evidence that fits your hypothesis and reject the evidence that doesn't. Either your hypothesis is valid or it isn't.
Christian Cosmology based on a literal reading of Genesis is manifestly not a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

What in science name have you come up with now? You(and atheism) very well break this rule.

Where?

somze:
You've totally thrown away and rejected the scientific evidence against bb i brought up earlier sticking to the few that bb can cook up.

Which evidence? The assertions based on analogy and the - non-scientific - anthropic principle? Of course, anyone with even the tiniest bit of scientific integrity would do that.

somze:
You totally ignore that most of bb is based on speculation and can not be proven.

No, it is not based on speculation, it is inferred from the observations and still unfalsified. You could of course come up with a better falsifiable explanation that explains the observations better.

somze:
What i've deduced is that atheism is in fact a religion and truly based on faith (refer to my last post).

Empty assertion. On what faith exactly is it based?

somze:
You have a few of your type ("scientific" evidence that points in your direction, you disregard other (still scientific) evidence that opposes it and most of all you conclude based on a huge amount of what is mere speculation and largely unprove-able notions.

Proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science. In science, evidence is key. your sloppy usage of scientific terminology only shows your lack of insight into the scientific method

somze:
And you continually scream science as if you are one professor, when you do not understand the principle of explosion - a principle that your bb theory so thwarts - by claiming the universe exploded within itself and expanded but yet there was no space out of it. That is to say, an atom (actually much smaller and without any exterior space) just exploded within itself and became this huge infinite universe. Wow! I swear you have more faith than i do.

Can you stop the psychobabble for a moment and ponder over what you just wrote here? The post-modernists can learn a few tricks from you in the construction of hermetic sentences void of content.

somze:
Look if you want to talk science talk science - since you obviously do not understand when ricadelide talks supernatural, but do not hide behind your so called rules that is only rightly interpreted and implemented by you.

I have no idea what you're on about here. Can you rephrase?

somze:
If you want an open and honest discussion (or research) or bb, intelligent design and/or genesis, i'm always around.

I'm glad to hear, but I don't like to discuss cosmology any further, as it doesn't interest me in the slightest. Intelligent Design on the other hand

ricadelide:
It's funny, i'm doing a Phd in molecular biology and i don't believe in evolution. I'm in a very lonely company though. LOL. But i'm sure there are are other biologists who don't.

Well, you've got Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. The force of their arguments is rather weak though.

ricadelide:
I believe in intra-species evolution. At the very least, viruses are always evolving. i don't beleive in cross-species jumps.

What magical barrier is there to prevent speciation events from taking place? Why micro-evolution and not macro-evolution? The underlying processes are identical and there's nothing in the genome that prevents it, afaik.
Obviously, I am not a biologist, but only a social scientist with a keen interest in evolutionary biology. And, in view of your professional and educational background I am very interested in what exactly makes you doubt evolution

ricadelide:
the first doubt, of course, is that am a believer - i hold God's word to be absolutely true.

So basically you'll reject evidence if it contradicts your faith?

ricadelide:
Rather than why do i not believe in TOE, it's more like why should I?

IVR's, the resemblance of mitochondrial DNA to bacterial DNA?
Maybe the following will interest you as a molecular biologist:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5439/458?ijkey=wdICO7J7uPLqc
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

ricadelide:
I don't expect science to believe in God, most scientists are naturalists, so it doesn't surprise me that we need a counter-argument to explain life and the universe. Believe me, the best place to enjoy biology is from a biblical christian perspective

How so?

PS: Ricadelide, I must say I truly appreciate your effort and I hope you can help me better understand your position, whether or not we will eventually agree or not.
PPS: I actually first wanted to put in a reference to Francis Collins when I replied to WesleyanA's post, as I consider his position to be one that a sensible theist can take (although I don't agree with him and many theists use arguments from his authority to shut up non-theist dissenters)

Bobbyaf:
I pray that people will have an open mind to such revelations as they come.

Coming from you, that definitely makes me shudder.

Bobbyaf:
Please take a look at these streaming videos that provide evidence that the bible's account of an instantaneous creation of the earth's granite or foundation rocks is indeed true, and likewise the account of the universal flood. Here is the link:

http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm#yae

They each deal with:

1. The centre of the universe

2. The young age of the earth

3. Fingerprints of creation

Here's a more parsimonious explanation for those polonium halo's:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/default.htm

Bobbyaf:
Simply choose the best downlad speed and watch for at least one hour the fascinating truth about what evolutionists have not yet discovered. Its so simple one wonders why they failed to see the evidence

Yeah, just like one wonders why those creationists fail to stop using the same arguments that have been debunked time and time again. But then again, disingenuity is virtue if it's in the defense of the faith, isn't it? It's not exactly Jihad, but still.

Bobbyaf:
Even Jesus gave them a clue about the rocks crying out, and they still didn't heed the advice.

They surely will gnash their teeth in eternal torment, won't they? That surely must be a consolation

Bobbyaf:
God bless and enjoy the videos.

If one is capable of enjoying the lying liars and the lies they tell

ricadelide:
And by the way, its not possible to hold that GOd's word is true and also believe that macroevolution is true. Either one is true and the other false or they are both false. In my case, i don't believe in evolution - and i'm a biologist, Rom. 3;4. Cheers.

I knew they had to exist somewhere, biologists that don't believe in evolution
You guys must be of a rare breed, sorry kind
Care to explain what exactly makes you doubt the TOE?

Anyone who wouldn't isn't worth of having a spouse. If you marry and you haven't cleared out the religion issue before marriage, you're not fit to marry.

sisimose:
@seun no she has not being 419ed lmao

That would mean that the pastor's intent was dishonest, which I doubt, so no, she hasn't been 419ed

WesleyanA:
like my pastor told me "God is not a God of logic. he does his stuff in mysterious ways" i guess that's a good explanation.

As Seun said, that's not really an explanation, but rather a dodging of the question

WesleyanA:
it's normal not to believe in God for a while i guess.

It is as normal to do it for a while as it is to never do it or always do it

WesleyanA:
maybe you're going through that stage of questioning who you are and what your place is in life. I knew i was going through that stage. I still am sort of.

Never stop questioning, WesleyanA, never ever. It would be such a monumental waste of a good mind/brain.
The thing is, it is - for me at least - perfectly OK to believe, as long as your honest with yourself. Don't go around claiming that you believe because of evidence or reason though, because that is utter baloney.

WesleyanA:
There is definitely such thing as evolution though.

Do study evolutionary theory, it's elegance and explanatory power are breathtaking. I even get 'spiritual' when confronted with the natural world

WesleyanA:
sigh, i'm still confused

Continue your questioning, maybe your confusion will stop, maybe it won't, but at least your understanding will deepen.

somze:
@nferyn
First of all i notice the futility of this discussion. I'm not here to be convinced of the existence of my God (Jehovah/Yhwh - both christians and jews believe in thesame God) neither are you genuinely here to be convinced otherwise (no such thing as a God but bing bang, evolution etc), but for clarity sake and for those on the wall here goes:

That's the purpose of apologetics, isn't it, it is to defend the faith (those people on the wall), not to bring an argument to it's logical conclusion

somze:
The Design Argument (theory) is:

It can only be called a theory in a vulgar, colloquial sense, it's nothing like a scientific theory.

somze:
(1) Everything we’ve encountered that appears to have been designed does in fact have a designer;

assumption 1, no evidence; Actually, when it come to biological complexity, the argument from design falls flat on it's face. The non-directional forces of natural selection, sexual selection and gene drift working on natural genomic variations within populations caused by mutations and/or sexual recombination are perfectly capable of explaining our biodiversity starting from simple organic replicators.

somze:
(2) The universe does appear as if it has been designed;

No it doesn't, it appears to be orderly, something different. A snowflake is orderly and complex, yet it finds it's origin in simple natural processes

somze:
(3) Thus, the universe has a designer;

(1) and (2) don't apply, thus (3) doesn't follow

somze:
(4) This designer is God.”

Which follows neither from (1), nor from (2), nor from (3)

somze:
Wanting to narrow this down a bit, i'll deal with - "There is no design, ergo, no need for a designer. Why don't you start by bringing evidence for the existence of design in the natural world (I'm not referring to design by humans)?"

Yes there is a design(non-human) take our solar system for example, every planet orbits round its axis at its speed and never deviates. If one planet was to be taken off, science says we would all squash into each other and that would be the end of our solar system. The planets revolve round the sun, we have a galaxy of our own that stays on its path without interefering with others. Even in our earth, we have a design, from the tropics to the antartic, every creation has a design. Insects, animals and humans.

Yet we have countless places in the universe where those conditions aren't present. Simple probability in the face of the vastness of the universe can account for the fact that our planet is suited for our form of life. Your argument is similar to this: The chance of winning the lottery are so staggeringly small that one cannot win the lottery. If there are enough people participating, someone is bound to win the lottery, you know. I won't touch on the creation/evolution thingy, as you'll bring forward your evidence for ID in another thread, aren't you?

Here's a quote from Douglas Adams which I find quite applicable:

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in'an interesting hole I find myself in'fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

somze:
We humans have functions that every single part (organ, cell or system) performs. Earlier when the functions of some parts where unknown evolutionist thought it was proof to their theory (claiming the parts had funtions in primitive forms and after metamorphosis came into no use).

Ah those evil evolutionists and what they claim. Glad to know you're accurately representing the TOE and are not talking from that place where the sun doesn't shine. Maybe you could find me one evolutionist that makes such a ridiculous claim?

somze:
Now medical science indeed has shown the functions of those parts.

Medical science, I see where you're coming from lol. Michael Egnor, anyone?

somze:
An indeed beautiful and intelligent designer must have been involved no doubt - and we are totally convinced that the designer is our God.

How little you need to be convinced, oh gullible ones.

somze:
What convinces us is our bible -love it or hate it- its authenticity, its historical accuracy, its message. Nature also helps solidify our position, and even science does (from the little i've shown).

There's indeed little you have shown, I must say.

Ah Bobbyaf, how are you?
It's good to see that the forerunner in the 'lying for Jesus' squad is back at it again. You want to give your arguments against the TOE another go, or you rather have others do the dirty work for you?

somze:
My next post propose intelligent design to validate creation theory. If thats ok with you.

Thanks

You can try, but I warn you, I don't take prisoners when it comes to the evolution/creation debate. Many attempt have been made here on this board to debunk the TOE, none have succeeded.

somze:
Observations (some of which i made earlier and many more to come) and occurences are also in contradiction with your "established scientific knowledge". Why just then should i not show natural and scientific validations that point towards what I believe? You don't want ricadelide to show it based on faith, reason and supernatural, now i can't use scientific observations for mine? What exactly do you want? Ricadelide sums you up very well. Atleast you and I agree on something - this discussion is pointless

Either you accept the scientific method to arrive at truth or you don't. But if you do, you have to accept one of the basic principles of the scientific method as well, the criterium of falsifiability [/b]of hypotheses. You then should accept any attempt at falsification of your hypothesis on the basis of how well the evidence lines up with your hypothesis and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you should accept it to be falsified. You cannot pick and choose the evidence that fits your hypothesis and reject the evidence that doesn't. Either your hypothesis is valid or it isn't.
[b]Christian Cosmology based on a literal reading of Genesis is manifestly not a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

@ somze
From your quote (emphasis mine):

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

You see why your analogies are inapplicable? that explosion was nothing like a chaotic even, nothing like a tornado in a junk yard.

somze:
@nferyn
Asking about christian cosmology probably means you disregarded my links (wonder why you asked for them). I don't know why you called it that - cosmology- but anyways i'll lift something from the site because its a simple summary.

Basically there are two views of the origin of the Universe. One of these is the supernatural position set forth in the book of Genesis (Chapters 1-2), with ample confirmation from other inspired writings. The Genesis narrative affirms that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of the initial week of earth’s history. Subsequently, during the remaining five days of creation activity, attention was directed to this planet, the abode of man—who was uniquely fashioned in the image of the Creator (Gen. 1:26,27). The sun, moon, and stars were also made (v. 14ff). The Scriptures make it perfectly clear that the whole creation (inorganic and organic) came into being during this six-day period (see Ex. 20:11).

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_big_bang_theory_vs_gods_word

So you are believing in the literal truth of the Genesis account, even though it is in clear contradiction with almost all established scientific knowledge? I guess then that all discussion is pointless, but please don't drag in any scientific underpinnings of of your belief.

somze:
I'm studying about the big bang to fully understand it. Due to your "no explosion ever occured". will get back to you

looking forward to it.

ricadelide:
sorry it took long to reply, i initially felt it was pointless.

If it is, why don't you bring some sound evidence of that fact? Assertion is no substitute for reason.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a supreme being made everything in the earth. THe only reason why you think it is not plausible is because you are a naturalist, pressupossing that everything in the universe is material in nature, thus you seek material evidence for a spiritual being - which will never happen.

I think you're on to something here. It is not as much as I seek direct material evidence for a spiritual being, but rather, in as much as that spiritual being interacts with the material world, there will be consequences for the material world and these consequences can be studied. When on investigates a phenomenon that seems to be a manifestation of that spiritual being upon the material world, then the causality involved in that manifestation, must by necessity first eliminate the possible material causes of that manifestation before one can establish whether or not that manifestation can possibly have an immaterial, spiritual cause.

ricadelide:
I'm sure you've been exposed to numerous arguments about the many immaterial parts of our universe, and many abstractions notably the very logic you claim to be a basis for obtaining and verifying truth. Just like you presuppose, i presuppose the revelation of God through His Word, and it is a perfectly plausible explanation for the universe as it is - in all its vastness and order.

It might very well be consistent with the observations we can make in the universe, but nowhere can one make the claim that the material universe is contingent upon the existence of a deity and his revelation through his word (I assume you're referring to the Bible here). If you're talking about a literal reading of the Bible, then one cannot even claim that it is consistent with our current scientific understanding. The stories in Genesis are clearly not scientifically correct representations of our natural history. The story of Noah and his Ark e.g. is so laughably impossible that it hardly merits investigation.

ricadelide:
The supernatural on the other hand can neither be investigated nor understood, as it lacks that regularity and lawfulness. By calling something supernatural (even though there is no reason to do so), you're putting it out of the reach of scientific investigation and shield it from inquiry. It's the epithetome of organised and institutionalised ignorance.i must let you know that, in all sincerity, YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural.

And how then could I get to that knowledge?

ricadelide:
Some more assertion. Where's your evidence?
First, it isn't true that the supernatural cannot be investigated. In actual fact, it can. But like i said the last time, you can't use a light microscope to view a picornavirus, it hasn't got the proper resolution. HOwbeit there are physical manifestations of the supernatural, it is subject to each person's interpretation and for a naturalist, the possibility of a physical manifestaiton having its origins in the supernatural is ruled out ab initio.

It is indeed a premisse of the naturalist that the universe is lawful and that logic applies. To find conclusive evidence for the supernatural, you would need to establish:
1. that some phenomena are not following natural laws
2. that these phenomena (if evidence of their non-lawfulness is found) are the result of agency that exists outside the natural.
Could you come up with a (possibly experimental) set-up to establish those 2 point? Without this your supernatural entities are purely speculative.

ricadelide:
Possibly. Define the non physical and ellaborate on how one can investigate that non physical. If you are unable to do that, your claims are empty talk.
Unfortunately we don't have a common ground when it comes to discussing spiritual issues. In my sphere, spiritual issues are constantly being investigated. But to quote someone; "the evidence used to prove something exists must correspond to its nature".

Can you explain, because I just don't understand how that investigation works.

ricadelide:
Apart from the spiritual though, the mental process including logic as well as consciousness and personality is immaterial, and you'd really have a hard time trying to prove that it is a mere product or illusion of our brain's physical activity.

Why should I have to prove that? As long as it is the most parsimonious explanation and it fits with the observation, the material origin of consciousness and personality is a perfectly acceptable hypothesis. And some aspects of consciousness have been proven to have a material cause, so we're getting ever closer in our understanding of consciousness.

ricadelide:
Indeed they cannot (directly) be explained by science, but what makes you think religion is up to the task?
First, I'm not trying to defend 'religion' here; i'm not an advocate of religion and, it might surprise you that i view atheism as just another religion masquerading itself as being seperate from it.

No, that doesn't surprise me at all. It just shows a basic misunderstanding of what atheism is, though. It is merely the lack of god-belief.

ricadelide:
it takes faith to be an atheist (faith in the presupposition that the universe is material, amidst other presuppositions i wont mention now).

It only takes faith in two things:
1. the lawfulness of the universe
2. the applicability of logic
Everything else is based upon those 2 premisses. But most atheists (and the same goes undoubtedly for most theist as well) don't really look for a deeper epistemological underpinning of their atheism.

ricadelide:
the only thing difference is that many religions believe in a supreme being, but not all - buddism for example doesnt.
However, my major presupposition is that God has revealed himself in His Word; the Bible, and from that point i think i have answers to many things - at least to the limits by which my finite mind can grasp.

Could you give an example of one of these answers?

ricadelide:
I search and investigate the Word, and it proves itself. what makes my faith as a child of God different from other faith-systems is that it self-validates, and we have assurance (through logic and what not) of our faith.

What makes you think that's any different for other religions?

ricadelide:
I'm perfectly sure of what i believe and my spiritual journey continually takes me to greater levels of certainty. No other belief system including atheism is perfectly sure of its initial presupposition.

Depends on what you consider perfectly sure. I'm as certain as anyone can be about the two premisses I mentioned before. Even more so because without it any discourse about anything at all would be impossible

ricadelide:
It is indeed hard for me to understand how educated, intelligent people can continue to believe in religion. That's the main reason why I enter these debates.
First to address the issue of 'religion'. We're all religious beings - if the common denominator for religions is the employment of faith. You have faith in the natural realm, and that affects your whole outlook. I once read a sticker which said; "i don't have enough faith to be an atheist". if anything, if you talk to a christian who has been 'saved' they don't see themselves as religious but as spiritual. Many of the most intelligent people i've ever known are christians. the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, I definitely wouldn't claim that intelligence and religiosity are mutually exclusive and that's exactly what puzzles me

ricadelide:
I find it hard to see how intelligent people will reject God - but, again, i know the reason why this is so.

You do? Care to explain?

ricadelide:
I'm a biologist that's why i talk about biology. If anything, my faith in God gives me more interest in science because i can see everything i observe in the right perspective and it makes perfect sense. Many times when you listen to biologists you can 'hear' the deification of 'nature', like it is an entity on its own who dictates what is and shouldn't be. For someone with a revelation of God, everything falls in proper place.

You mean the Dawkinsian awe in the face of nature?

ricadelide:
As I've written before, I would very much appreciate it if you could provide a method for verifying these claims, but I must say that mere faith, to quote CS lewis, doesn't cut it for me. There don't seem to be any rational reasons for belief, do you have any other?
what you fail to acknowledge is that all philosophical systems or world outlooks involve faith. Faith is the foundation for logic, because logic makes pressupositions.

Logic only presupposes itself. An entity can not both be and not be. It is the basis of all discourse and actually of all world views, even those rejecting it.

ricadelide:
Christian faith presupposes a God who has revealed himself. From that point on, logic helps to understand and explain what is revealed. But the process of revelation is not mental, but rather spiritual. God reveals himself not in mere words but in spirit and those who have their hearts enlightened can receive the revelation of God.

So that process is then decoupled from the factual claims the Bible makes about the universe?

Thanks for your rejoinder, I think we're getting closer to a mutual understanding of each other's positions

somze:
@nferyn
Document was saved on my computer way back but would find the links and send asap, i normally post reference links. Yes it was from Wayne Jackson. Never said it was mine as you noticed i left references to other stuff there.

1 the BB theory fits with the observations, does Chrsitian cosmology?
A few obsevations were given in my last post that it does not seem to fit with.

Which ones and in what sense? It's not because something is (or can be made to be) consistent with something that it is contingent upon it. Please before we enter into a back and forth argument, it is possible that my understanding of Christian cosmology is skewed. Could you please explain the main elements of Christian cosmology?

somze:
2 it allows for predictions, which perfectly fit with the observations (i.e. cosmic background radiation points to a singularity)
It also shows discrepancies with clear evidence provided and how much of the "predictions" have actually fit with the observations.

Which discrepancies are you talking about? Are you talking about an explosion, something that is nowhere implied in the Big Bang theory, or are you rather talking about this gem it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the Universe itself is not uniform, which reads like water does not harmonise with fire, therefore God exists.
Maybe you're referring to something else?

somze:
3. the tornado in a junk yard argument is ridiculous prima facie, because it uses concepts from our everyday experience that don't apply to a singularity, e.g. there was no explosion
My paragragh which you refer to -
Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting “bang.” The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, p. 40).

1. The BB was no chaotic explosion
2. the analogies don't apply
3. the fact that the mechanisms of something are not fully understood are no reason to go for another view for which there is no evidence whatsoever. this is personal incredulity at it's best

somze:
What exactly are you saying? BB is a once in a forever plural (don't know what caused) explosion?

It is nothing even remotely close to an explosion. An explosion is caused by a rapidly expanding gas, nothing of that sort happened during the BB.

somze:
It can not be compared to anything else that explodes?

No it can't because it is not an explosion.

somze:
Even scientists presume that there is uniformity in the universe.

Above everyone else, scientists do that, it is the basis of scientific thought. Your point?

somze:
Thats why experiments done in a place can be carried in another place and thesame result expected. Though it is not yet proven, it is accepted everywhere.

Ok, your point?

somze:
If i give you a recipe i expect the outcome to be thesame as what i have irrespective of when i wrote the recipe.

Again, seems about right. What was your point again?

somze:
Is Wayne Jackson wrong to point out that disorderliness or chaos or "nothing" can ever leat to order, design and "something"?

Who ever brought forth such nonsensical claims? It's only your flawed analogy between the BB and an explosion that could make you think such a thing. Who again claimed that the singularity was disorderly or the BB event was a disorderly event? It's definitely not the proponents of the BB theory.

somze:
Not even science is with you on this matter.

Maybe not your straw man version thereof, no. Real science on the other hand

somze:
4. the anthropic argument is plainly ridiculous, because it is above all begging the question and presupposes what needs to be proven and does not offer any basis for falsification, which makes it scientifically useless
For this you would need the complete link, i cut some things out becuz of reference and length.

Ok then, maybe you can expand the argument?

somze:
Maybe we can validate your alternative cosmology using the same criteria the author of your post, Wayne Jackson, has used to critique the Big Bang theory
You can do that, it would only be fair to use thesame standards for the two theories but for now lets stick to disvalidating yours. Thank you

Prey tell me, what is my cosmology? As far as I know, the question hardly came up for me, I find the question of ultimate origins rather empty, as far as your quote mining goes, I do agree with the following: Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts. Personally, I find it not very interesting, but, let's be brutally honest here, the few facts underlying scientific cosmology are far more solid than the spurious claims underlying Christian cosmology, but then again, maybe you can enlighten me.

@ somze
You're using the typical Christian apologetical tactic of plagiarism. Please properly show your sources if none of the arguments you propose are yours.

The presented dissection of the Big Bang theory doesn't do it any justice, as:
1 the BB theory fits with the observations, does Chrsitian cosmology?
2 it allows for predictions, which perfectly fit with the observations (i.e. cosmic background radiation points to a singularity)
3. the tornado in a junk yard argument is ridiculous prima facie, because it uses concepts from our everyday experience that don't apply to a singularity, e.g. there was no explosion
4. the anthropic argument is plainly ridiculous, because it is above all begging the question and presupposes what needs to be proven and does not offer any basis for falsification, which makes it scientifically useless

Maybe we can validate your alternative cosmology using the same criteria the author of your post, Wayne Jackson, has used to critique the Big Bang theory

somze:
What do you mean that there are not nearly reductionistic enough?

Quite simply that the presupposition that revelation is true is a composite truth claim and that it in itself is contradictory because the different elements of revelation contradict each other (e.g. the impossibility of the omnimax god). Moreover, to assess the truthfulness of any claim, one needs to presuppose the validity of logic and the lawfulness of nature and these are precisely the only presuppositions in the naturalist world view. So to even be able in principle to validate the truth value of the Christian world view, one needs to accept the validity of methodological naturalism. To asses the validity of any world view whatsoever, one needs to presuppose the validity of the naturalist world view

somze:
Even you can't meet your outrageous standards.

What outrageous standards? How exactly don't I meet these standards?

somze:
Do you want the author to write about all the religions and belief systems in the world? Did you study all those systems before you decided on atheism?

I didn't decide on atheism as you put it. Atheism is the default logical position to take. The onus is on you to bring evidence for your claim that God exists.

somze:
I'm thinking you hardly went through the book.

I already said that I only skimmed through it, but that's hardly an argument, is it. I am confident that I can dissect each and any one of the bogus arguments the author brings. If you want to present an argument, go ahead and I'll discuss it.

somze:
Much less faith than you need to prove the inexistence of deity or disprove the designer's argument

It's up to you to bring evidence of the existence of a deity in the first place, if you can do that, I will accept your claim. Atheism, contrary to all the apologetical tricks of theists to frame the debate in their terms, is not the affirmation of the non-existence of a deity, but rather the lack of belief in such. It's only a minority that affirms the non-existence of that deity, which in itself is an impossibility, one cannot prove a universal negative. Yet theists continue to use their disingenuous straw man of atheism, I wonder why?
The designer's argument is no argument at all. It is assuming the consequent and is no explanation as it falls into the trap of infinite regress for which it only knows one exit, precisely the one that it wants to invalidate.

somze:
-where there is a design there must be a designer(which the author refers to).

There is no design, ergo, no need for a designer. Why don't you start by bringing evidence for the existence of design in the natural world (I'm not referring to design by humans)?

somze:
Or can you show clear and incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist?

For the ephemeral first cause that is sometimes labelled as God, that is impossible. For a specific deity, such as the Judeo-Christian Jahweh on the other hand, I can most definitely support my claim of non-existence. Start by clearly defining your God and his characteristics and we can talk, as Jahweh is a different entity to different people.

somze:
My guess is you needed your own bunch of presuppositions to arrive at that belief (faith).

What belief are you talking about?

somze:
Now about Judas not being "properly evidenced." - here with your standards again.

My standards are those of historical criticism, the standard in the study of history.

somze:
What then is your definition of "properly evidenced." and how does it fit with the culture that was existent more than 2000 years ago?

What do you mean by culture that was existent more than 2000 years ago?

somze:
Christianity is not just faith, it is faith with reason. Christians should endeavour to research about their faith.

http://www.apologetics.com/ebooks/farinaccio-faithwithreason.pdf

Another one of those weak apologetical intellectually coated attempt at reasoning that even a cursory reading of the argumentation within the book can easily demolish. Just one example:
The defense on the rationality of the Christian world view rest on the argument that all world views have certain presuppositions or premisses and that these have to be accepted by faith. The main problem with that argument is the premisses of Christianity as presented in the book are not nearly reductionistic enough and as a matter of speaking must [b]also [/b]presuppose [b]all [/b]premisses of the materialistic world view as well (I'm not going to delve into the caricature of atheism the author makes, because that would lead us too far). Christianity must not only accept revelation on faith, but must also accept the overall lawfulness of nature and the applicability of logic, the [b]only [/b]presuppositions of naturalism. A whole lot more faith, it seems to me.
Besides, to 'prove' revelation, one can only use the presuppositions of the naturalistic method, but one can easily toss out the same method when it contradicts that revelation. The premisses of the Christian world view (which in the case of the acceptance of revelation is not sufficiently reductionistic to accept as a valid premisse) are contradicting each other. It's a classical case of having your cake and eating it too. This may convince the already made up mind, the purpose of apologetics actually, but cannot possibly convince someone who honestly investigates the claims.

somze:
What is our concern with Judas? Its up to him and God. By your logic we should honor racist because without them equality wont have existed in US, or Hitler should be honored since his killing of millions of jews led to their returning to their land or lets honor criminals because without them we wont have laws to protect us. Your logic is gravely flawed.

This is indeed a ridiculous argument, especially when the very existence of Judas is not properly evidenced.

Seun:
Can you mention the name of one country that operates a centrally-mandated two party system? No.

I know of no country with a two party system as you describe it. However, for all the countries that have two party systems in practice, it is more a consequence of the chosen electoral system: the more proportional the system, the more parties you'll have. In a plurality system like the Uk or the US, you have a natural tendency towards a two party system as the less fractured the electorate is, the more chance of winning you have. The main disadvantage of a plurality system is that it usually doesn't properly represent the opinions of the electorate.