Daily Gospel

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Jack, i think you're taking metaphors and applying them as literal, and taking literals and making them metapors, "the four corners of the Earth" is a simple expression, and you know that, it is not literal.

And micro organisms may not have been mentioned, but they obviously were there, however, look at the broader picture, there could not have been animals before land, and when the Earth was formless and waste there had to be rain to create land from the lava that flowed throughout the Earth, and that rain would fill the seas.

If you pick something apart down to the atoms and look at it with denial, you can deny anything and say it's proven, or you can look at it logically and unbiasly.
 

DeletedUser

Wow, do you even bother to read the crap you write Blondie? That was just about the biggest attack of word diarrhea since the black penny's last forum post!
 

DeletedUser

Jack, i think you're taking metaphors and applying them as literal, and taking literals and making them metapors, "the four corners of the Earth" is a simple expression, and you know that, it is not literal.

And micro organisms may not have been mentioned, but they obviously were there, however, look at the broader picture, there could not have been animals before land, and when the Earth was formless and waste there had to be rain to create land from the lava that flowed throughout the Earth, and that rain would fill the seas.

If you pick something apart down to the atoms and look at it with denial, you can deny anything and say it's proven, or you can look at it logically and unbiasly.


All I know is, that the knowledge of a spherical Earth was exclusive to the intellectual elite in astronomy and related fields. Today ordinary people know it as well and are able to see it as a metaphor. But for writers and readers of the bible back then, it must have had a literal meaning.

It doesn't need a genius or a prophet to tell, that land animals need land to live on or that water dwelling creatures need water to survive. A 5 year old child could tell you that. I'm not sure why you put such an emphasis on it.
Genesis' order of life can't possibly be correct, as organisms are dependent on other organisms to survive. Head lice and humans is just one example, but whole ecosystem would fail, if there were only half the animals. Many ecosystems would have crashed and that would have lead to an extinction of species, that we can see well and alive today.
Where does the bible mention lava to form the land? And since when is rain considered to fill the seas anyway?

And if I look at something logically and unbiasedly, then it includes accepting gaps as gaps and not filling them with unsubstantiated claims. And it also requires to acknowledge contradictions to my own ideas and not simply ignoring or dismissing them as insignificant.
 

DeletedUser

14th OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
John 3:16-21 Discourse with Nicodemus


Food for thought:
To know that God sees us brings both conviction and comfort.
:indian:
 

DeletedUser

No Jack, you create the gaps and don't look for the filling, you ask a question and don't care to search for the answer, no worry, ive seen a hundred times. :)
 

DeletedUser

15th OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
John 3:31-36 The One from Heaven


Food for thought:
When we forget ourselves, we do things others will remember.


:indian:
 

DeletedUser

See, this is where I walked away from the thread. I clearly demonstrated the person you quoted did not have the credentials these Creationist sites were claiming, and you say, "attempted dismissal of Cohen's quote via character assassination." Dude, that's not character assassination, that's proving he's a fraud and, in so doing, proving that what he says lacks merit.

Your deductive reasoning here is faulty. He used a pen name. You can't find record that he was associated with AIA or NYSA, while all you have is his pen name, and you are surprised? Brilliant! Therefore, he is a fraud!! All this, you "clearly demonstrated"! Cohen wrote what is essentially a math analysis, albeit 25 years ago. Using Morowitz' (a legitimate biologist) biochemical parameters, Cohen showed that the purely mathematical probability AGAINST an organism arising by pure chance is a number with (over) 180,000 zeroes after it (ie., 10 to the 180,000th power.) This is mind-boggling when we consider that superscript numbers, or "powers" tell how many zeroes are in a number. You refuse to deal with the point. Look up Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, please. See what I wrote before, and address their substantive point. You've used Cohen as your scapegoat to allow you justification to not have to deal with the point. Which is what I told you.

didn't bother replying to anything else you posted because despite my showing this one particular person you quoted is fake and ignorant of the topic, you clung to his words and try to use the rest of the quotes that I didn't bother to debunk as supporting evidence to a lie, which basically demonstrates that you're really not interested in the truth, only in what supports your beliefs.

Here you really assume yourself right into oblivion. I'm not interested in the truth, because I insist you deal with the point, well-supported by many reputable others (but all you can see is Cohen). But still you see me clinging to Cohen's words, and the rest of the evidence I gave you does not matter because we already know it's a lie? Fantastic conversation here.

I was inclined to run through the rest of those quotes to either debunk or show how they were taken out of context, but I lost interest. You're not being honest here (either with yourself or with the readers), so participating in a discussion with you would be a waste of time.

You owe it to yourself to investigate the issues, the repercussion's are very important. I would love to see your examination on the men I gave you. Chances are, you already have. If I've made a mistake, I'll admit it. If I'm wrong, I'll admit that too, I just need to see factual evidence. The points I made stand, and that on the evidence of objective science. Like I told Jack, if you want to believe that the invisible building blocks of the universe randomly and by chance organized themselves into highly complex organisms, go right ahead. Just please be honest about your own level of faith in that which is not seeable or testable, and is therefore not very scientific.

Peace my man,

-Seamus
 

DeletedUser

16th OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
John 6:1-15 Multiplication of the Loaves


Food for thought:
If you’re not on guard against evil you’ll be influenced by evil.


:indian:
 

DeletedUser

Using Morowitz' (a legitimate biologist) biochemical parameters, Cohen showed that the purely mathematical probability AGAINST an organism arising by pure chance is a number with (over) 180,000 zeroes after it (ie., 10 to the 180,000th power.) This is mind-boggling when we consider that superscript numbers, or "powers" tell how many zeroes are in a number.

customer review from www. amazon.com/Darwin-Was-Wrong-Study-Probabilities/dp/0910891028 said:
Using Morowitz' biochemical parameters, Cohen showed that the purely mathematical probability AGAINST that organism arising by pure chance is a number with (over) 180,000 zeroes after it (ie., 10 to the 180,000th power.) This is mind-boggling when we consider that superscript numbers, or "powers" tell how many zeroes are in a number.

Now, how high is the probability that both of you came up with this independently? Mind-boggling, that's for sure.


However, reading other reviews on amazon and even more the complete lack of support among other experts, makes me wonder how reasonable Cohen's conclusion were in first place.


As for your other three authors, they seem to have as much expertise in evolution as you and me have in stochastic.
 

DeletedUser

I cut and pasted that very good summary right in there for sake of time. I suppose it's all fraudulent, so just completely disregard what I was trying to say. It makes life easier.
 

DeletedUser

Yeah, that's pretty bad Seamus, you're plagiarizing other people's comments, word for word, and you don't even know if what they are saying is true. Well... let me tell you, what you plagiarized is incorrect. Quoting Richard Carrier:
"Scientific ignorance also leads to the abuse of such citations, and you have to carefully pay attention to context. Coppedge, for instance, also cites (on p. 235) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (p. 99), who reports that (paraphrased by Coppedge) "under 'equilibrium' conditions (the stable state reached after initial reactions have balanced), the probability of such a fluctuation during Earth's history would be...1 chance in 10^339,999,866." In particular, this is "the probability of chance fluctuations that would result in sufficient energy for bond formation" needed to make a living cell. This statistic is laughable not only for its outrageous size, but for the mere absurdity of anyone who would bother to calculate it--but what is notable is that it has nothing to do with the origin of life. For notice the qualification: these are not the odds of the first life forming, but the odds of enough energy being available for any life to grow at all, in an environment which has reached an effective state of thermal equilibrium--a condition which has never existed on Earth. It is obvious that in an equilibrium state, with no solar or geothermal input, it would be impossible for life to gather enough energy to go on. Who needs to calculate the odds against it? Morowitz was demonstrating a fact about the effects of maximized entropy on a chemical system, not the unlikelihood of life originating in a relatively low entropy environment like the early or even current Earth. The fact is that life began in, and has always enjoyed, an active chemical system that is not only far from equilibrium, but receiving steady energy input from the sun and earth. So this statistic has no bearing on the question of the odds of life."
Ergo, one of the reasons why I didn't refute each and every quote, besides of which being I'm not confident you'll even bother to read the refutations, is the fact they all served merely to reinforce a false premise. I instead went after the premise, and in this right here, in this right above, the premise has been effectively refuted, therefore your entire argument is invalid.
 

DeletedUser

This goes back to the "closed" system issue....but you must look at the universe as a larger system. He states our environment is receiving steady energy influx from the earth and the sun....but neither one of those are infinite in energy production...they are winding down.....logically you are pointed back to a wound clock....
 

DeletedUser

Hmmm, I don't mean jumping into the conversation between you, my brothers.. all I can ask myself is, "how did this (all of these) come to be?.." The Sun, the Earth..them being in its place.. the whole Solar System in its place.. the Andromeda, the rest... what could be the origin of the very first "thing" that came to be?

Just a though, a question in mind I'd like to share. I'm not asking these to be answered, just to express that I marvel at such.. :)

*******

17th OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
John 6:16-21 Walking on Water
Food for thought:
Witnessing is not just something a Christian says, but what he is.

:indian:
 

DeletedUser

This goes back to the "closed" system issue....but you must look at the universe as a larger system. He states our environment is receiving steady energy influx from the earth and the sun....but neither one of those are infinite in energy production...they are winding down.....logically you are pointed back to a wound clock....
Sorry Seamus, that's a red herring, unrelated to the invalid argument.

Hmmm, I don't mean jumping into the conversation between you, my brothers.. all I can ask myself is, "how did this (all of these) come to be?.." The Sun, the Earth..them being in its place.. the whole Solar System in its place.. the Andromeda, the rest... what could be the origin of the very first "thing" that came to be? Just a though, a question in mind I'd like to share. I'm not asking these to be answered, just to express that I marvel at such..
Just because you don't know doesn't translate to, "it must be god." Instead, it translates to, "you don't know."

If you don't know how a tree grows, due to ignorance, do you equate it to, "God made it?" And then, when you're provided detailed data and research that demonstrates how a tree grows, which you must accept and cannot refute, do you still stubbornly and equate it to, "God made it," thereby equating that knowledge you have just obtained to actions from God in order to maintain your belief? If so, that's called cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I think one of the biggest problems between many believers and many science-minded people (not that a person can't be both) is that they all look at the [somewhat] finished product and are intrigued by how it came to be. Most believers look and say that God has to exist in order for everything to come together exactly as it is needed for us to survive. Most scientists look and say that we are here and the way we are because of the way everything came together. I have never been able to understand why it's so important to both sides to try to "prove" the other wrong rather than just be satisfied with knowing they're right.
 

DeletedUser

There are those within the faith spectrum who argue that scientists have an agenda, and that the agenda is to attack or dispute religion. However, when you lift a rock and find a gem, the gem was not the agenda, nor was lifting the rock. Lifting the rock was the action. Specifically what was your agenda? To see what was under the rock. That is discovery. The agenda was fulfilling curiosity, obtaining answers.

Sorry Arty, scientists as a whole do NOT try to prove religion wrong. They work to examine the evidence available, search and research for ever more data. Their goal is to gain answers, not to come to conclusions, and certainly not to serve a malicious agenda.

This is a longstanding misnomer, painted by extremist religious folk who repeatedly attempt to debunk any scientific evidence that inadvertently/unintentionally threatens their dogmatic views. Simply stated, scientific discovery is an engine whose agenda is it's own. It is geared to search for answers, not to cater to political/religious correctness. Discoveries can, and sometimes will, offend those who have held to opposing views but, discoveries are not agendas. Discoveries are answers to questions.

In contrast, religions have already come to conclusions without any available, nor supporting, evidence. If evidence is later presented that disputes one of their conclusions, it is dismissed as a false god (do recall, Creationists refer to researchers specializing in evolution as Darwinists and Darwinism as a religion. This is absolute poppycock and has been thoroughly addressed in previous discussions).


Posed for thought: If you believe an apple falls to the ground because it wants to become a tree, and evidence is presented that apples fall to the ground due to a measurable force, presently referred to as gravity, yet you continue to believe that apples fall to the ground because they want to be trees, that's dogmatism. If you take an alternate path of accommodating your belief by rationalizing the new evidence (for example by asserting that gravity is merely the measurable will of the apple to be a tree), then you are impressing cognitive dissonance (which is basically dogmatism + conscious delusion/distortion).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I don't believe I said anywhere, or at any time, that scientists as a whole do anything. What I said was I don't understand why someone who believes that God created the world can't be satisfied in "knowing" it rather than trying to make everybody "know" it. I also don't understand why those who believe otherwise can't be satisfied with "knowing" that they know better, and let the others live with their "false beliefs."

I sometimes think that Santa was modeled after God, or the other way around, Nobody's seen him, he'll give you great things if you're good and believe in him, the gifts stop if your belief does, and no matter how many times someone tells you he exists and it's in your best interest to believe, you can't force yourself to believe in someone you are sure doesn't exist. If you try pretending you do just for the gifts, you're still not going to get any.

It's been a long day, I hope that makes sense.
 

DeletedUser

I don't believe I said anywhere, or at any time, that scientists as a whole do anything.

My response was primarily in reference to your last sentence in your previous post:
"I have never been able to understand why it's so important to both sides to try to "prove" the other wrong rather than just be satisfied with knowing they're right." ~Artemis Gordon
What I said was I don't understand why someone who believes that God created the world can't be satisfied in "knowing" it rather than trying to make everybody "know" it.
Because the Bible commands them to convert others, and to not merely be satisfied in their own salvation.

I also don't understand why those who believe otherwise can't be satisfied with "knowing" that they know better, and let the others live with their "false beliefs."
Because those with their "false beliefs" (as you put it) repeatedly attempt to:
1. impose their beliefs on others, including such acts as attempting to have their beliefs taught in schools as "science,"

2. attempt to legally condemn those committing acts that their belief says is wrong (same sex marriage, etc),

3. use beliefs as a means to manipulate others for their own agendas, be it become wealthy, take lives, and/or oppress (jihad, Iraqi war, evangelists, Iran etc).

4. use the no-taxation privilege provided by nations to non-profit organizations, whilst repeatedly violating the laws pertaining to separation of Church and State, utilizing the self-same money they saved in not paying taxes to pay lobbyists and illegally providing low-income housing to sympathetic Senators (plus many other actions clearly not above-board)

5. verbally, physically, and in letter, condemn and profane against lifestyles and/or practices they deem go against their beliefs.

6. violate their self-same beliefs whilst condemning others for the actions they commit to in private.

7. assault women's rights, same sex rights, and other religions' rights,

8. undermine crucial research efforts to save human lives, animal lives, the ecosystem, and yes, even the economy...
All under the banner of their false beliefs. You cannot ignore the rights being taken away, distortions of truth being wrought through the public school system, condemnations and violent acts against others, be they of the wrong color, religion, sexual orientation, or even sex, merely because someone is entitled to their beliefs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

My response was primarily in reference to your last sentence in your previous post:
"I have never been able to understand why it's so important to both sides to try to "prove" the other wrong rather than just be satisfied with knowing they're right." ~Artemis Gordon

Actually, that statement was in reference to my first, which was about many believers and many science-minded people. I just don't always say what I mean clearly, I guess. I can see people trying to spread the word to convert others, but when it's so obvious that the other person isn't interested, why keep pushing the issue rather than moving on to someone else who may be more receptive?
 

DeletedUser

Brother Hellstromm, will all respect, just because one doesn't know, one has to continue without knowing.... it comes to such question in my mind since even after trying to come up with explanations, the "scholars and the learned" is unable to come up with answers to everything. . They may have the sufficient knowledge and ways to find out and explain thing, but they still can't explain all. Your example of a tree and its components and everything about it still is an example of something that already existed before it was first to even be thought of being studied to find out how it goes about, and how it grows.
As in my thought at my previous post, how did it come to be? A tree started from a seed, or a seedling; but where did the very first tree, or seed come from? Where did it start?

Sister (correct me if I'm wrong) Artemis in your earlier post, I'll have to say that believers as myself, or speaking for myself, don't try to prove that God exist.. I simply share my belief. As someone who shares a favor, the person or people shared with may either accept or reject, sometimes even refute the favor rendered to the point that even the one who renders it, as in some cases, is condemned. . However, I still know that we are all brothers and sisters.. and all misunderstandings may be reconciled in due time. ;)

*******

18th OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
John 21:1-19 The Appearance to the Seven Disciples
Food for thought:
Keep your eyes fixed on the prize.
:indian:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top