tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3038843555459588785..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Why creationists think they are more open-minded than scientistsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22524185987378645692014-04-24T12:46:26.030-04:002014-04-24T12:46:26.030-04:00Useless drivel.Useless drivel.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61835697184321449082014-04-24T12:26:25.723-04:002014-04-24T12:26:25.723-04:00That is some good stuff right there :) nice. I lik...That is some good stuff right there :) nice. I like it. Anyways, you All make some great points (although the Bible references are taken completely out of context) but there's still just a very unsettling thought for me, and like I said it hit me in college as a bio major, that no scientist in the history of the world has ever been able to disprove God nor truly prove the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Lawrence says he would flunk me for "not having mastered the material" but would he have the balls to flunk guys like Louis Agassiz who adamantly opposed Darwin for good logic? Even current brainiacs like Kirschner and Gerhart who attempt to fill in the massive holes today can't do it without heavy opposition. So, what hope do non-creationists actually have? I am pro-science on many many levels, but realize that waking up "hoping" God isn't real or that someone somewhere will finally prove evolution or the big bang has to be unnerving, especially if someone has a gun to your head and the jury was still up! <br /><br />But, what an even greater tragedy if that same person had heard there was such a hope in Jesus Christ and chose never to investigate it for themselves. Although of equal misfortune would it be if that investigation only included the thoughtful perspective of any ordinary human ranging from an athiest to the pope himself; for how would a scientist find any evidence for the sun if they spent their entire life learning about the sun from a creature in a cave, for not even the pope himself can match what is the spring of true hope, Prayer and the Word of God when absorbed in its context! Worldviews aside, circumstances aside...religions aside...For God clearly states "you will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" -Jeremiah 29:13 HappyEasterWeek :)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16729844448235205393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45153725608054978052014-04-20T08:04:35.719-04:002014-04-20T08:04:35.719-04:00HappyEasterWeek:) seems to have died and left this...<b>HappyEasterWeek:)</b> seems to have died and left this thread. But, not to worry, he's due to return today! Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91658775907658111912014-04-19T06:44:33.038-04:002014-04-19T06:44:33.038-04:00Quest said: Since you can't provide any scient...Quest said: <i>Since you can't provide any scientific evidence for abiogenesis, you can be telling jokes about it like the one with the vents...? I laughed my ass off when I heard that....</i><br /><br />You gotta learn how to live with your asslessness along with your cluelessness.<br />You know darn well there is no evidence of abiogogenesis and you are unable to wrap your mind around the fact that nobody claims there is any. If you have evidence against it, you are free to publish, The possibility of abiogenesis will stay open until you or someone like you present incontroversible evidence against it.Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12490202856780424822014-04-18T18:25:24.353-04:002014-04-18T18:25:24.353-04:00HappyEasterWeek What convinces me most of the fals...HappyEasterWeek What convinces me most of the falseness of christianity is the jaw dropping lunacy and desperation of the attempts to demonstrate it is true.aljones909https://www.blogger.com/profile/10277116174278206834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36966264683153948402014-04-16T20:58:53.203-04:002014-04-16T20:58:53.203-04:00Oh, and:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_bibl...Oh, and:<br /><br />http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_propheciesFaizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46551790685785459852014-04-16T20:38:55.935-04:002014-04-16T20:38:55.935-04:00Wow! Wasn't that amazing?Wow! Wasn't that amazing?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3776498657026659222014-04-16T20:38:21.160-04:002014-04-16T20:38:21.160-04:002323Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33901928874864944762014-04-16T20:38:02.477-04:002014-04-16T20:38:02.477-04:00That's nothing, HappyEasterWeek:). Wanna see ...That's nothing, <b>HappyEasterWeek:)</b>. Wanna see an even bigger miracle?<br /><br />The post immediately after this one will consist of a number between 1 and 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.<br /><br />I predict it will be 23.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47143077407307167102014-04-16T20:13:08.016-04:002014-04-16T20:13:08.016-04:00Jem says: The God of the theologians is such an ab...Jem says: <i>The God of the theologians is such an abstracted, impersonal thing. The irony is that it probably makes more sense, but it's not meeting any of the emotional needs of human beings....</i><br /><br />Exactly. A god truly of everything might as well be a god of nothing in particular. I imagine a creator of the universe if one existed, would have as much to do with us as with rabbits, rocks, and that hydrogen atom in the Crab Nebula. But people do need that active, reactive, human-like but omnipotent father with which to have a personal relationship. Jesus, or someone, take the wheel, for christ's sake!SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13532442862065850802014-04-16T17:28:24.509-04:002014-04-16T17:28:24.509-04:00"…that a man named Jesus did come and has ful..."…that a man named Jesus did come and has fulfilled messianic prophecy with 100% accuracy."<br /><br />When the Messiah comes, prophecy says of the Jews: 'everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.' (Isaiah 51:11). <br /><br />So ... pick one:<br /><br />1. Since the time of Jesus, the Jews have lived only in joy and peace. <br />2. Not that.<br /><br /><br /><br />Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66729967561361152692014-04-16T16:37:06.489-04:002014-04-16T16:37:06.489-04:00Does Torley refer to or present any actual evidenc...Does Torley refer to or present any actual evidence for God's existence? nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69984742274702713162014-04-16T15:53:48.602-04:002014-04-16T15:53:48.602-04:00[part 2 of a 2-part reply to happyeasterweek]
&q...[part 2 of a 2-part reply to happyeasterweek]<br /><br /><br />"BUT we know from the Bible and other secular historians (Josephus for example)…"<br />Josephus? The dude what wrote the Testimonium Flavianum, a document whose passages dealing with Christ are, in part, the product of Christian meddling with the text <i>after</i> Josephus finished writing the TF? Yyyyyeah… that Testimonium Flavianum, it's <i>totes</i> reliable as a basis on which to conclude that Christianity is true. <i>Totes</i> reliable, dude.<br /><br />"…that a man named Jesus did come and has fulfilled messianic prophecy with 100% accuracy."<br />Except, of course, that the Jews <i>don't</i> think Jesus "fulfilled messianic prophecy with 100% accuracy". [shrug] It's <i>their</i> prophecies, dude; go argue with <i>them</i>.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27258890417212750042014-04-16T15:51:56.909-04:002014-04-16T15:51:56.909-04:00sez happyeasterweek:
"Great! Let's use so...sez happyeasterweek:<br />"Great! Let's use some basic analytical theory here because we both know that mathematical proofs/numbers are basically unchallengeable."<br />Not exactly. As the saying goes, <i>Figures never lie—but liars sure can figure.</i> Or perhaps a different saying, with greater generality: <i>Garbage in, garbage out.</i><br /><br />"As an example, let's take a look at the probability of chance origin of life..."<br />Hold it. "chance origin of life" doesn't refer to a single, well-defined concept; at absolute best, being as charitable as possible, "chance origin of life" refers to a <i>class</i> of <i>many</i> different origin-of-life scenarios. And these scenarios can and do differ in many details. If you happen to disprove chance-of-life-scenario A1, bully for you, but you haven't thereby disproved chance-origin-of-life-scenario A2.<br /><br />"a single cell is going to require hundreds of functional proteins to appear simultaneously each of an independent probability"<br />Hmm. Looks like your 'proof' assumes that <i>every last one</i> of the bits of the cell <i>just happened</i> to fall into place, all in one fell swoop. That… uh… isn't a scenario that any real scientist thinks might have happened. Because, as you correctly point out, the odds of <i>every last one</i> of the bits of the cell <i>just happening</i> to fall into place, all in one fell swoop, are so very improbably small as to be indistinguishable from zero. Now, would you care to apply your penetrating analysis to any of the origin-of-life scenarios that real scientists <i>actually are</i> working on?<br /><br />"then you need to consider things like handedness (chirality), DNA, other cell matter etc and you come up with number that is zero (1 chance in a number with a lot of zeros behind it that chance origin of life happened..no matter how long you have)."<br />Yes, yes, the 'one fell swoop' chance scenario (in which <i>everything</i> falls into place in one stroke of blinding improbability) is crap, and no real scientist should accept it. Quite right. Remarkably enough, no real scientist <i>does</i> accept the 'one fell swoop' chance scenario. Now, what do you have to say about any of the origin-of-life scenarios which <i>are</i> accepted by real scientists?<br /><br />"So, using that type of math, let's look at the Bible. The Bible is centered around a man named Jesus Christ, so much so that people were predicting his coming hundreds of years before he showed up…"<br />Hold it. How do you know that? Yes, the bible has a bunch of words in it that refer to this "Jesus Christ" person—but how do you know that <i>any</i> of those words were actually written <i>before</i> JC showed up? And even if we accept, <i>arguendo</i> that some/all of those words actually were written before JC showed up, how do you know that they actually were intended to refer to JC, as opposed to being intended to refer to some other person entirely?<br /><br />"…and predicted very detailed events (stuff that makes nostradamus look like an amateur). For example Jesus' place of birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), that He was a sin offering (Isaiah 53), entered Jerusalem at a certain time (Daniel 9:20-27), hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16) just to name a few. Some scholars count upwards of 322 prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. So, even taking a hand full of the most well known ones that would be impossible to "self fulfill" and using conservative estimates like 1/100,000 for accurately predicting his place of birth, the final number is again zero or 1 in a number with tons of zeros behind it. The number is so improbable Jews still can't believe it happened."<br />False. Jews can't believe it happened because they don't believe Jesus actually did fulfill the prophecies. Probabilities don't enter into it, me lad!<br /><br />[part 1 of a 2-part reply]Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74401752779485454872014-04-16T14:16:05.917-04:002014-04-16T14:16:05.917-04:00Happy Easter Week says It's all there! meaning...Happy Easter Week says <i>It's all there!</i> meaning all the information is right there in the bible.<br /><br />Yes, yes. We know its all there! It's wonderful you like the stories, and a major concern that you view this as evidence of things that really happened. And if writing things down got these men killed, this points to why its a major concern that you believe is such testimonies: let us just recognize that it wouldn't have been atheists who did the killing. Killing in the name of competing nonsense continues to this day. Anyway, happy easter.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92049858292447660412014-04-16T13:53:54.722-04:002014-04-16T13:53:54.722-04:00The number is so improbable Jews still can't b...<i>The number is so improbable Jews still can't believe it happened.</i><br /><br />I would suggest you might want to start taking after the Jews you refer to, but that would only slightly lessen the load of nonsense you carry in your head.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40360253672887652432014-04-16T13:02:57.225-04:002014-04-16T13:02:57.225-04:00Great! Let's use some basic analytical theory ...Great! Let's use some basic analytical theory here because we both know that mathematical proofs/numbers are basically unchallengeable. As an example, let's take a look at the probability of chance origin of life...a single cell is going to require hundreds of functional proteins to appear simultaneously each of an independent probability, then you need to consider things like handedness (chirality), DNA, other cell matter etc and you come up with number that is zero (1 chance in a number with a lot of zeros behind it that chance origin of life happened..no matter how long you have). So, using that type of math, let's look at the Bible. The Bible is centered around a man named Jesus Christ, so much so that people were predicting his coming hundreds of years before he showed up and predicted very detailed events (stuff that makes nostradamus look like an amateur). For example Jesus' place of birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), that He was a sin offering (Isaiah 53), entered Jerusalem at a certain time (Daniel 9:20-27), hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16) just to name a few. Some scholars count upwards of 322 prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. So, even taking a hand full of the most well known ones that would be impossible to "self fulfill" and using conservative estimates like 1/100,000 for accurately predicting his place of birth, the final number is again zero or 1 in a number with tons of zeros behind it. The number is so improbable Jews still can't believe it happened. BUT we know from the Bible and other secular historians (Josephus for example) that a man named Jesus did come and has fulfilled messianic prophecy with 100% accuracy. It's flat astounding. And this week we get to celebrate his greatest fulfilled prophecy, his death and resurrection on the cross (as prophesied in Genesis 22, psalm 22, psalm 41, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 12, Psalm 34 and Psalm 16). That's why it's Happy Easter Week! HappyEasterWeek :)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16729844448235205393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36673811298139947322014-04-16T12:51:05.279-04:002014-04-16T12:51:05.279-04:00"I and the father are one"
Yes, 1 + 1 =...<i>"I and the father are one"</i><br /><br />Yes, 1 + 1 = 1 (or actually 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 if you include the Holy Spirit), showing the impeccable logic of the doctrine. Or to put it in non-mathematical terms, the guy's his own daddy, but at the same time he's not. That may be one reason why people don't make much of a practice of opening their Bibles, since there's a great deal in there that defies all logic and sense. Of course that was the intent - if everyone could do it, what would make Jesus special enough to be a candidate for Messiah (when the early Christians were still mainly a Jewish sect) or God (after Christianity separated from Judaism and none of the Messianic predictions - no more war or suffering, God's kingdom on Earth, etc. - came true, and the Second Coming became doctrine)?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5570427158619056772014-04-16T10:03:40.637-04:002014-04-16T10:03:40.637-04:00"simultaneously it's a desperate attempt ..."simultaneously it's a desperate attempt to paint any competing viewpoint as similarly irrational, similarly faith-based, similarly religious."<br /><br />There are whole sets of arguments that are basically 'you're just as bad as we are'. <br /><br /> Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91256216797019772412014-04-16T09:55:16.933-04:002014-04-16T09:55:16.933-04:00"But at least the god in the clouds idea is s..."But at least the god in the clouds idea is somewhat definable in a simplistic, cartoonish way."<br /><br />The God of the theologians is such an abstracted, impersonal thing. The irony is that it probably makes more sense, but it's not meeting any of the emotional needs of human beings (ironic because that's what the religious accuse scientists of pushing). <br /><br />I honestly think religion is about three questions deep, wherever you dig. You get an evasive answer, the you haven't read enough theology answer, and then a you just don't get it because you lack faith answer. Whatever question asked, whatever the prior claim. <br /><br />The God Christians worship is a being who likes peace and fairness, and who won't let you down. Which sounds great until you realize that what they really want is that God will back them up in any given argument. <br /><br />As I say, I really would like bishops, theologians and other Christian thinkers - the smart ones, not low hanging fruit like Egnor or Quest, or creationists - to say exactly what their religions teach about medical prayer, the afterlife, homosexuality and so on. It's vile, most of it. The God of theologians is, by any other standard, a monster. <br /><br />One of my favorite challenges, and it's topical this week, is the one Philip Pullman came up with. If it was somehow within your power to rescue Jesus before the Crucifixion, knowing the suffering he was about to endure, would you do it? <br /><br />Most atheists would, without hesitation. It's a moral no-brainer. A man, doesn't matter who he is, is about to be tortured to death. If I could save him, I would. Now ask a Christian that. The smart ones, when pressed, end up conceding that they'd allow it. <br /><br />*Theologically* you'd have to let it go ahead. This is an argument against theology, not for it. Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74394512303262146302014-04-16T09:44:48.212-04:002014-04-16T09:44:48.212-04:00And these guys all were killed for writing this st...<i>And these guys all were killed for writing this stuff down and knew it!</i><br /><br />You quote John a lot. He, for one, was not killed for the stuff he'd written, if we can trust Christian tradition.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42941071653232650922014-04-16T09:38:43.600-04:002014-04-16T09:38:43.600-04:00SRM. Let's take a rather simplistic definition...SRM. Let's take a rather simplistic definition of God: "something or someone that is worshiped, served or idolized". I bet if you poll a random sample of teenagers they view Justin Bieber as a God (that one actually really blows my mind :) Also, I think we are all guilty, at least on some level, of viewing ourselves as God (lotta big egos). Thirdly, and sadly, I believe that many church-goers also have a hard time defining what it is they worship at church because they are failing to open up their Bibles and really understand who Jesus was and what He did for mankind. So, if you want a clear definition of God...I'd say go right to the source, start with the book of John in the new testament and it's all there. It starts off "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...(then verse 14 says the Word became Flesh)" that's Jesus. And if we continue through that chapter we learn that Jesus provides more than enough evidence that He was in fact God. Here's a short list: Jesus states: "I and the father are one" John 10:30, "I am the way, truth and life"...John 14:6, "I am the light of the world" John 8:12, "I am the resurrection and life" John 11:25, "I will raise this temple [my body] in 3 days" John 2:19 (that's what's celebrated this weekend) just to name a few! Jesus also performed miracles, forgave people of their sins (which only God can do), and was viewed as God by his closest followers (many of whom wrote down their eyewitness accounts and which today is read as the Bible). It's all there! And these guys all were killed for writing this stuff down and knew it! That's proof in itself they believed Jesus was God. Anyways, sorry I rambled a bit but hopefully that helps. You want a definition of God from a Christian...It's Jesus Christ. HappyEasterWeek :)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16729844448235205393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73127235803947163622014-04-16T08:57:30.318-04:002014-04-16T08:57:30.318-04:00Absolutely, HappyEasterWeek:). Let's see the ...Absolutely, <b>HappyEasterWeek:)</b>. Let's see the numbers that prove Christianity is true.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41858064092177636982014-04-16T07:38:41.792-04:002014-04-16T07:38:41.792-04:00I don't doubt HappyEasterWeek. A human who see...I don't doubt HappyEasterWeek. A human who seeks to believe will indeed come to believe. Its not for nothing this popular idea of abandoning oneself to christ, even on a trial basis...what have you got to lose? It works best when evidence is nothing, until such time nothing becomes evidence.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26154160337810669192014-04-16T07:20:16.071-04:002014-04-16T07:20:16.071-04:00The God that Christians have in their head is *exa...<i>The God that Christians have in their head is *exactly* the kindly Santa Claus God that theologians sneer at. The very best way to empty the Churches is to make the people who go to them listen to what the scholars of their tradition teach.</i><br /><br />Yes, I like to call it a cartoon god. But Ive noticed that many of the christians I have spoken to can be provoked, with a few simple questions, into abandoning this concept for more mysterious and metaphorical versions. No doubt they revert back to the "heavenly father-figure" by the following sunday, if not sooner. But at least the god in the clouds idea is somewhat definable in a simplistic, cartoonish way. Its when they temporarily abandon this notion that it becomes clear they themselves have no idea what they mean by god.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.com