Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God vs. Science
Valerie
Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 151 of 164 (456967)
02-21-2008 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rahvin
02-20-2008 9:01 PM


Jesus didn't just die, he took on the whole worlds sins, and that was more painful than anyone has suffered. He did it not knowing if anyone would be saved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 9:01 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Taz, posted 02-21-2008 2:07 AM Valerie has replied
 Message 158 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2008 10:38 AM Valerie has not replied

  
Valerie
Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 152 of 164 (456968)
02-21-2008 1:56 AM


What about the Palonium Halos that Dr. Robert Gentry found in the granites. No one has ever been able to refute those! That showed that the granites had to form instantly!

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by dwise1, posted 02-21-2008 11:57 AM Valerie has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 153 of 164 (456969)
02-21-2008 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Valerie
02-21-2008 1:53 AM


So, god sacrificed himself to himself in order for himself to forgive our sins?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Valerie, posted 02-21-2008 1:53 AM Valerie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Valerie, posted 02-21-2008 2:20 AM Taz has replied

  
Valerie
Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 154 of 164 (456971)
02-21-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Taz
02-21-2008 2:07 AM


Nice obfuscation! The problem is that you do not seem to understand the concepts of justice and of cause and effect. The violation of the law meant that a debt was owed. The son of the living God chose to suffer our punishment not so that He could forgive us, He had done that even before we sinned. He paid the debt that was owed because He is perfectly just as well as perfectly loving. He is not some cruel arbitrary dictator as a human would be. Before you can understand the sacrifice you must first understand the concepts of perfect love and perfect justice. Without that basis, none of it will make any sense to you at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Taz, posted 02-21-2008 2:07 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Taz, posted 02-21-2008 10:43 AM Valerie has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 155 of 164 (456977)
02-21-2008 3:17 AM


Time for everyone to review message 1? (also attn. Valerie)
Pretty hard for me to do an "off-topic alert" - I don't really know what the topic theme really is. See message 1, maybe you can figure it out.
Valerie, in message 152, writes:
What about the Palonium(sic) Halos that Dr. Robert Gentry found in the granites. No one has ever been able to refute those! That showed that the granites had to form instantly!
I'm pretty sure that is pretty remote to whatever this topic is. Go to polonium halos if you wish to pursue that item further.
Please, NO responses to this moderation message.
Adminnemooseus

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 156 of 164 (456984)
02-21-2008 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Crooked to what standard
02-01-2008 5:34 PM


bullshit Christian propagandist quoted in the O.P. writes:
The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"
"No sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir, I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"Yes."
"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"
Well, swinging back to the topic, the O.P. author thinks that the silly piece of religious propaganda he has quoted is "cool".
In the extract above, for example, we have a fictional science professor who implies that you have to be able to observe phenomena directly with the five senses in order for them to exist. So, we have a scientist who doesn't accept the existence of sub-atomic particles, the earth's core, planets identified by the wobble of their stars, and many other things known or thought by scientists to exist that we cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell.
On top of that, this "scientist" implies that science tells as that things that it cannot identify at this point in time, like Gods, do not exist, which it certainly does not.
So, here we have an example of an apparently deliberate attempt by Christians to try and deceive people as to what science is, and how scientists attempt to understand the universe.
Ironically, the piece of rubbish in the O.P. could be regarded as evidence of a false religion trying desperately to justify itself.
Why would a true religion need to attempt to deceive naive minds in such a way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 5:34 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Jaderis, posted 02-21-2008 7:54 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 157 of 164 (456993)
02-21-2008 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by bluegenes
02-21-2008 5:12 AM


Ironically, the piece of rubbish in the O.P. could be regarded as evidence of a false religion trying desperately to justify itself.
Why would a true religion need to attempt to deceive naive minds in such a way?
Because they know that naive minds can be deceived by simplistic, pretty little stories that can be swallowed whole without much thought. Kinda like sitcoms or pop songs or news sound bites or self-help books.
Yeah, you can relate to them a little bit, possibly, and you can ponder the message for a few minutes and then have a "deep revelation" without really digging all that deep and then congratulate yourself on your own depth without looking into anything that might contradict this revelation. And when confronted by contradictory evidence you can be smug in the fact that you have something over someone else. No one can take away your "revelation." Personal experience is powerful. It doesn't matter if contradictory evidence is staring you in the face, you know what you saw or felt or experienced (especially if someone else spells it out for you in a way you couldn't express...like preachers, self-help authors, talk-show hosts, etc). And that is what people like those who passed along the OP in an email think.
I dunno..it kinda reminds me of delusional stalkers. Pretending that every wayward glance holds significance, holding conversations in their heads about their intentions and pretending that the other person is talking back to them and even fantasizing elaborate scenarios and being offended when the stalkee doesn't remember what "they promised."
All the while the stalkee is throwing out all kinds of evidence that they want nothing to do with you. The negative evidence is just "playing hard to get" or "s/he didn't get my flowers" or "s/he didn't mean it when she said 'get bent creep.'" But the stalker twists everything around and omits the negative evidence to make themselves look good.
Funny thing is that many people won't get the hint unless they get hit over the head (literally or philosophically). The evidence is right there for you to see but you are so blinded by emotion that you can't. You want to believe in something that is not there so much that you will not recognize the police officers outside the door as having any authority. You have an invisible authority that no one else can see unless they believe your delusions. Whether it be your invisible god or your invisible "permission" (based on delusional conversations...sometimes based on a book or a movie or a music video, etc) to invade someone else's life.
Yes, I am comparing some creationists to some stalkers. The criteria is the same. Confidence in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence. The delusion is the same. Even when it's thrown in their face they refuse to recognize it. Their "feelings" top everything else. It's creepy. And it is all too pervasive. That is why chain emails like this work. People believe what they want to believe unless they actually do some work and look it up. If it is presented to them in a palatable manner and they agree with it, they won't bother. It's (the OP) just another cute, yet slightly thought provoking email from their co-worker or cousin or whoever. No need to really think about it.
Or expect real, rational debate. Because if fishie really wanted to debate he would have posted his own argument and not a chain email designed to trap people in OT discussions.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2008 5:12 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 158 of 164 (457005)
02-21-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Valerie
02-21-2008 1:53 AM


Jesus didn't just die, he took on the whole worlds sins, and that was more painful than anyone has suffered. He did it not knowing if anyone would be saved.
You know what, I'm going to stop using this signature. Apparently certain individuals, like you, can't resist making completely off-topic remarks regarding my signature, rather than posting regarding the actual thread topic.
If you'd like to discuss whether Jesus' sacrifice of an entire weekend was really much of a sacrifice, by all means, feel free to start your own thread rather than taking up valuable posts in one where it's off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Valerie, posted 02-21-2008 1:53 AM Valerie has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 159 of 164 (457006)
02-21-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Valerie
02-21-2008 2:20 AM


So god sacrificed himself to himself in order for himself to forgive our sins?
PS This isn't a cranky question.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Valerie, posted 02-21-2008 2:20 AM Valerie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2008 3:04 PM Taz has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 160 of 164 (457030)
02-21-2008 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Valerie
02-21-2008 1:56 AM


What about the Palonium Halos that Dr. Robert Gentry found in the granites. No one has ever been able to refute those! That showed that the granites had to form instantly!
PRATT!
When the sites Gentry obtained his samples of basement granite were visited by other geologists, they found that he had obtained them from igneous intrusions into metamorphic rock. In other words, instead of being original rock instantly called into being at the beginning of the earth's existence, it was rock that had intruded itself via underground lava flow into rock that had pre-existed for so long that it had been transformed from its original form (that is what metamorphic rock is).
When Wakefield investigated Gentry's sites, Gentry was at first cooperative, but as soon as Wakefield started discovering the truth, Gentry became very uncooperative.
BTW, in the 1981 Arkansas "balanced-treatment" trial the teacher who had been put in charge of creating the "creation science" curriculum testified that the only reference she could find supporting "creation science" was a Reader's Digest article on Gentry's claim (she already had to reject the Institute for Creation Research's materials because they were too blatantly religious). Upon examination, Gentry's claims have also proven to be false.
No one has ever been able to refute those!
Completely and utterly false. Whoever told you that was lying to you. Gentry's claims have been refuted since the 1980's and have had to be refuted another thousand times because creationists refuse to face the truth and continue to spread the exact same lies about his claim.
That's what the acronym PRATT tells you: "refuted a thousand times." Practically the entire body of "scientific evidence" offered up by creationists are nothing but PRATTs.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : added top qs box

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Valerie, posted 02-21-2008 1:56 AM Valerie has not replied

  
Earendil
Junior Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 01-27-2008


Message 161 of 164 (457381)
02-23-2008 1:08 AM


"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"
Really? I don't think science has said this. Science cannot address this question, it is a metaphysical question and science must presume methodological naturalism.
The rest of the email is rubbish aswell.

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Taz, posted 02-23-2008 2:07 PM Earendil has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 162 of 164 (457441)
02-23-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Earendil
02-23-2008 1:08 AM


If you click on the reply button that looks like
, it will tell us whose post you're replying to. If you click on the general reply button that looks like this
, then it tells us nothing. We encourage people to click on the smaller reply button so we could keep track of who's talking to who. Otherwise, we'd be like a room filled with people talking past each other.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Earendil, posted 02-23-2008 1:08 AM Earendil has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 164 (457454)
02-23-2008 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Taz
02-21-2008 10:43 AM


Taz writes:
So god sacrificed himself to himself in order for himself to forgive our sins?
PS This isn't a cranky question.
Applying to topic, that notion is neither Biblical, logical and perhaps in some respects not scientific. Jehovah god is not Jehovah's earth born son Jesus whom Jehovah sent to earth via the multipresent spirit of Jehovah and Jesus, nor is earth born Jesus Jehovah god the father. Presently each entity has a different location, Jehovah god sitting on the throne of Heaven and the son Jesus on the right hand of the father, Jehovah.
Jesus is awaiting time (which according to Matthew 24:36 only the father; not the son knows ASV) to descend to earth at his prophesied 2nd advent to the throne of David on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Taz, posted 02-21-2008 10:43 AM Taz has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 164 of 164 (457769)
02-25-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Crooked to what standard
02-14-2008 9:20 PM


Sorry for the very late response. There was a shooter at my school and effectively shot 5 people dead. So, I have been elsewhere for the past week.
quote:
Are they made from one or more cells?
Well, the point of precells is that they are primitive form of cells.
quote:
Do they require energy?
Yes.
quote:
Do they respond to stimuli?
Absolutely.
quote:
Do they reproduce?
Noone has been able to make this observation yet.
quote:
Do they display organization?
Absolutely.
quote:
Do they adapt?
Define "adapt".
quote:
Do they grow?
Yes.
quote:
Do they maintain homeostasis?
Yes.
Further experiments since the Urey-Miller showed that the organic molecules formed from the original experiment would sometimes assemble themselves accordingly to resemble the cell. Given enough energy, they pump ions in and out of their systems as a primitive form of metabolism. Noone has seen them "reproduce" yet, so that's why they are called precells. They lack this very important characteristic of life.
The more important point is that just this much has been said to be impossible to achieve. Keep in mind that people have only had the opportunity to work with these chemicals in the laboratory for the last few decades while the Earth had a much much longer time than that. Your "nay" saying is premature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 9:20 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024