My position explained

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

evolutionistic, atheistic, nihilistics

---

You baby raping Christian.What was that? You took that comment as an insult? Then what do you think "evolutionistic, atheistic nihilist" is?Could you show me a single trait that the three share? Are you claiming that god cannot create life that evolves? That atheism requires the belief that everything ought to be destroyed? That a person cannot be of the idea that existence is senseless and still think it was created as a sick experiment?You need to stop insulting those who don't share your take on the existence of god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

It favours the natural and gives no glory to God whatsoever

---

But everything in science favors the natural and gives no glory to god whatsoever. That's the point: It's science and not religion. You don't sem to have a problem when we investigate gravity or light or electricity or any of the other things that science investigates. Why are you so uptight about us investigating life? What does anything we find about how life works say anything about the existence of god or nonexistence thereof?Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

quote:

---

saying that we evolved in some pre-biotic sludge.

---

And what's wrong with that? Are you saying god is incapable of creating life any way he wants? You seem to have this vision of god lovingly and personally putting each and every molecule in a specific place, giving it a tender kiss before doing so, as if he were some cosmic Martha Stewart ("It's a good thing.")Search your Bible. Where does it say exactly how god did it? I can't seem to find it. Who are you to tell god how to do things? Just because you have an idea of how it should have been doesn't mean god did it that way. God can create however he wants, can he not?Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

quote:

---

if evolutionists have faith in abiogenesis

---

But they don't. How many times do you need to be reminded before you remember? There is no such thing as faith when it comes to science. Things are accepted as being true because the evidence indicates that they are. If more evidence shows up tomorrow that we were wrong about absolutely everything, then it all gets discarded. We used to think that the natural state of objects was at rest. We dumped that when we realized that objects in motion remain in motion until acted on by an outside force. We used to think of the atom as akin to a plum pudding until we realized that you could bounce an alpha particle off them. That's the difference between science and religion:What would it take for you to admit you were wrong? Ask a scientist and you'll get a dozen things that, if you were able to do them, would make him question everything about everything. What would you need to see in order to get you to question your faith?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

AdminIRH responds to me:

quote:

---

That said, could you be as polite as well, Rrhain? You two trading insults is not going to move the debate forward.

---

Um, I've tried the pleasant, let's not make waves approach and it doesn't work. This is not the first time mike has called those who advocate evolution to be nihilists, bent upon destroying the world.And no, I am not trading insults with him. The difference is that I don't believe what I said. I don't think he's a baby raping Christian. He, on the other hand, does think that those who advocate for evolution are atheistic nihilists. My words to him are to point out that he needs an attitude adjustment. He can't see it or he would stop it (assuming that he's not just a troll). It is not enough to simply say that it was an insult. It has been tried and failed.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

That means that in order to take offense, you must qualify as one who believes in a purposeless and bleak picture.

---

Incorrect. I don't have to be black to be offended by people insulting blacks by calling them "nigger." I don't have to be gay to be offended by "faggot." I don't have to be a woman to be offended when someone says, "She's such a cunt."Insults are insults no matter if they are directed at me or not.

quote:

---

But basically - if no God created the universe, and evolution is without purpose then.....hmmmmm, I'm confident you can figure the rest out.

---

Yep. The rest is that questions of purpose cannot be found in evolution. But then again, questions of purpose cannot be found in gravity, light, electricity, magnetism, or any other scientific field you might care to name. Science is not philosophy.Just because something wasn't deliberately, personally, and lovingly created doesn't mean it has no purpose. It simply means that the question of purpose must come from somewhere else other than the one who created it.By your logic, atheists would just as soon kill you as look at you since you have no purpose.

quote:

---

Certainly for eternal life - you'd have to look to cryogenics.. Now - call me silly but that's bleak and purpose as I meant it is not there....etc....see where I'm going yet?

---

Yep. The same place you always go: Atheists are psychotic, depressed individuals just one step away from destroying everything in a fit of pique.Yes, mike, you personally attacked a lot of people.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Search your Bible. Where does it say exactly how god did it? I can't seem to find it. Who are you to tell god how to do things?

---

​

I'm not, didn't you read where I admitt the possibilities of evolution?

---

Can't read what you didn't write. Here's what you said: In other words, you're still holding back. You think that evolution is some sort of anti-god, "atheistic/nihilistic" scheme to get you to fall into the hands of the devil.How can you claim to "admit the possibilities of evolution" when you don't even know what evolution is?

quote:

---

Yet certainly there is not enough evidence for abiogenesis

---

What does evolution have to do with abiogenesis? We've been over this before, mike. How many times must it be repeated before you remember? Evolution is compatible with every method of genesis you care to imagine. Life could arise chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through alien seeding or panspermia, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method you could care to fantasize about. Evolution doesn't care so long as that life doesn't reproduce perfectly from generation to generation. That's it. That's all evolution needs.Are you saying god can't create life that evolves?

quote:

---

and macro evolution might aswell be a pink unicorn

---

There is no such thing as "macroevolution" as distinct from evolution. If you have any evolution, then you have "macroevolution."If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to holmes:

quote:

---

Does abiogenesis and evolution and atheism paint a meaningful picture concerning the purpose of an individual circling a small apparently unimpressive sun?

---

You're conflating apples and oranges. Of course neither abiogenesis nor evolution "paint a meaningful picture concerning the purpose of an individual circling a small apparently unimpressive sun." But neither does gravity, light, magnetism, the Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, the Four Color Theorem, or any other scientific or mathematical field give us any information about what the meaning of life is. Science is not philosophy.When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. Where does this tell me how I should treat the poor? When populations of organisms are observed over time, they change. Where does this tell me if the rite of marriage is sacred? Anybody trying to find morality in science is doomed to failure because science cannot tell you how to feel or what to do.Science can tell you that if you perform a particular sequence of events, a person will die. It cannot tell you if you should perform that sequence of events.

quote:

---

Could I not argue that if we are all a result of chance then there is no higher purpose save that of surviving.

---

No, you couldn't. You are assuming that the only place purpose can come from is through an external source that is personally, deliberately, and lovingly involved in the creation. Why can't someone define his own purpose?By your logic, atheists are psychotic killers who would sooner murder you in your sleep than say hello because, after all, you have no purpose.

quote:

---

It's silly that you think eternal life is equal in purpose to hunting and killing for a few years on a planet trying to muster some joy.

---

It's silly that you think eternal life is equal to striving to make the world a better place here and now given the short time that you have in order to give joy to those that would come after you.Once again, you show that you have absolutely no respect for anybody who dares to contradict you in your declamation that they are depressed, pitiful beings who are a stone's throw away from suicide due to despair.

quote:

---

The implications of atheism and hihilism

---

When did atheism become a synonym for nihilism? When did atheists become nihilists? When did nihilists become atheists?

quote:

---

What you can't connect, is that if Dawkins is right, and we believers just need to "grow up", then we have infinitely less purpose in this universe, and basically - when your times up - that's it, your times up.

---

Incorrect. If Dawkins is right, then your purpose becomes your responsibility. If you want it to be something lasting through the ages, then you had better work your butt off while you have the chance since when your time's up, your time's up.Since when did a self-defined purpose become something less than infinite? The only reason you are here is because of all the people who came before you. Life has been churning on this planet for billions of years. And here you are pissing on their gift.

quote:

---

It's like Einstein said - what can science say about music?

---

Thank you. That was me who said that. I didn't think you considered me an Einstein.

quote:

---

By all means put science on a pedestal - but I won't.

---

But you do. You expect science to tell you how to feel and what to do. It never has and it never will. And then you get pissed off because it doesn't. The sooner you stop trying to find philosophy in science, the better off you'll be.

quote:

---

but for me - the nihilistic, atheistic and purposeless picture is unnaceptable for me - how's that an attack?

---

Because atheism has nothing to do with nihilism or "purposelessness." And for you to continually confuse atheism with them is insulting.Atheists have purpose. They simply don't need god to tell them what it is. And it is just as grand and glorious, just as infinite and far-reaching, just as joyful and consoling as yours.

quote:

---

The philosophy goes like this;

​

Evolution provides a mouth aswell as a bumhole.

---

Just a parboiled second. How is that philosophy? Where do we find anything about how we should treat our fellows in the knowledge that we have an alimentary canal?Once again, you seem to be incapable of comprehending the difference between science and philosophy.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

Ergo.....dust+breath=soul

​

Jes' talkin.....man does not have a living soul, he is one.

​

Animals were not part of that process.

---

That's not what the Bible says:Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.Therefore, animals are made from the dust of the earth.Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.Therefore, animals have the breath of life.Ergo, if dust + breath = soul, then animals have a soul as they are made from dust and have the breath of life.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

When did atheism become a synonym for nihilism? When did atheists become nihilists? When did nihilists become atheists?

---

​

A full explanation is above. I infact didn't say atheist is a synonym for nihilism

---

Did you or did you not say the following: If you can't remember your own words, which you even quoted for your own edification....

quote:

---

What makes you think that I am saying good works aren't worthwhile?

---

By saying that without eternal life, they are meaningless. You said that unless you have eternal life with god, you have no purpose.

quote:

---

But my point is, that on a universal scale we have infinitely less purpose if there is no God.

---

Why. You are a link in the chain. The only reason you are here is because of everything that happened before. What happens after you is dependent upon what you do because you are part of the passage from the past to the future. You are a part of history and eternity.That you won't be around to see it doesn't mean you aren't part of it.

quote:

---

And we are infinitely important with God - even outliving the universe.

---

You're assuming that there is something beyond the universe. Kinda contradicts the definition of "universe," doesn't it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But you do. You expect science to tell you how to feel and what to do. It never has and it never will. And then you get pissed off because it doesn't. The sooner you stop trying to find philosophy in science, the better off you'll be.

---

​

This interests me because Holmes said previously - in a thread a while back - that science is philosophy.

---

You're not talking to holmes when you're talking to me. I don't recall holmes saying that but it is immaterial. You're talking to me and I have never, ever said that science is philosophy. I have always stated the direct opposite: Science is not philosophy. Science cannot tell you how to feel or what to do.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The only reason you are here is because of all the people who came before you. Life has been churning on this planet for billions of years. And here you are pissing on their gift.

---

​

A gift is an intended occurence.

---

There you go with the insistence that everything be consciously and deliberately activated. Is there nothing that happens on its own? Does everything require god?

quote:

---

Now if life is a gift from God, and he intends it - but you said that I was the result of an unintentional beginning..This is inconsistent, - have you changed your philosophy?

---

Non sequitur.Just because something is a gift, why does that gift have to be from god? Is there nothing that happens without god? Is god responsible for everything?And once again, you assume that you are incapable of creating your own person. You didn't just appear, zap-poof.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. I don't have to be black to be offended by people insulting blacks by calling them "nigger." I don't have to be gay to be offended by "faggot." I don't have to be a woman to be offended when someone says, "She's such a cunt."

---

​

Quote where I have said anything as strong as this, in an account of my personal beliefs, as indicated by the topic title.

---

For at least the third time: If you can't remember your own words, words that you even quoted for your own edification....

quote:

---

And no - it was Einstein

---

No, the quote you gave was me. The quote you're now giving was Einstein.

quote:

---

Not everything should be looked upon scientifically.

---

No, not quite. Instead, not everything can be looked upon scientifically. Instead, everything that can be looked upon scientifically should be.You seem to want to draw a line around life and declare it off limits to inquiry for fear of what it might mean to your theologic presumptions of The Way Things Ought to Be as if god cares what you think.Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

quote:

---

This is why, imo - Dawkins is illogical to have a strong basis of atheism based on science.

---

But he doesn't, so your entire line of reasoning fails.Find another way to feel.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge responds to me:

quote:

---

Animals are not part of the process that makes man apart from them.

---

That's not what the Bible says. Where do we find that humans are made any differently from any other animal in Genesis 1 or 2? Heck, Genesis 2 describes both:Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Genesis 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.So if Adam was formed from the "dust of the ground" and animals were created "out of the ground," how does conclude that they were not made in the same manner?Remember, Genesis 7 says that animals have the breath of life, too, just like humans:Genesis 7:22: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.So if they were both made from the ground and both have the breath of life, how does one conclude that they were made differently?Besides, isn't that what god reminds Adam of when kicking him out of Eden?Genesis 3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

quote:

---

It appears to you that you have shown exactly that, but you have not.

---

Then get off your butt and show me where I've gone wrong. How strange that in this debate between us regarding what the Bible says, I have been the only one actually quoting it.Where in the story of the creation of humans and animals in Genesis do we find a different description of the methodology god used regarding the two?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Maestro232 writes:

quote:

---

I tend to think it more probable that God put animals on the earth without too much time for speciation, as that would make it possible to put all animal kinds on the ark if there weren't vast numbers of species.

---

Oh, lord...not the "kind" argument. Um, since the flood, according to biblical chronology, happened about 2250 BCE, are you seriously claiming that the animals went from a single instance to the literally millions of species we see today?If you argue this, you are more of an advocate of evolution than the most ardent biologist. You would literally need each individual in a generation to be its own species. And of course, the problem with that is that since there is only a single individual of that species, there is nobody for that individual to breed with and thus all life dies one generation after the flood.And, of course, nobody noticed this. For four thousand years, nobody seemed to notice that they started with a male and female sabretooth tiger only to find she gave birth to a litter of Siamese kittens.Your problem is that there are vast numbers of species. Millions of species of beetle alone.

quote:

---

Finally, there are some scientific reasons that lead me to speculate that the earth "IN IT'S PERFECT FORM," that is when God's creation was finished, is not much older than some thousands of years based on form of things we can observe today. (e.g., saltiness of oceans, spiralliness of galaxies, rotation speed of earth, etc..

---

Actually, all those things point to an earth that is billions of years old.

quote:

---

I think humans were made quite differently and uniquely

---

Why? The Bible says the exact opposite. Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19 both claim that humans and animals were created from the ground. In Genesis 3:19, god reminds Adam of this fact. In Genesis 7:22, the Bible points out that all life on the dry land has the breath of life, just like Adam does from Gen 2:7.Where in the creation story do you find humans and animals being created in different ways?I want chapter and verse.

quote:

---

I think when creation was done, only some thousands of years have passed since.

---

Physically impossible. The world cannot be as it is if it were only a few thousand years old. Everything about the earth points to it being billions of years old.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

Just a quibble, because I know you'd do it to me

---

Quibble away. I made a mistake. Misremembered. Doing some research on my own, there's about a million named species of insect which apparently make up about 85% of all known animal species. However, the estimated number of actual insect species on the planet is 20-30 million.Of the named species, the largest group are the beetles (350-400,000 species, Order Coleoptera) followed by butterflies/moths (165,000, Order Lepidoptera), flies (120,000, Order Diptera), and wasps/bees/ants (105,000, Order Hymenoptera). These four orders make up about 80% of named insect species.It would seem the ark wasn't really a boat...it was a terrarium.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Maestro232 responds to me:

quote:

---

If you have all the answers, is it worth it for me to really respond?

---

Do you have something to contribute other than baseless assertion? I can back up everything I said. What do you have?I can easily be wrong, but you're going to have to show me. Show me how Noah managed to get animals that are unique to Australia and that cannot swim all the way across the Indian Ocean to the Middle East in order to acquire passage on a boat which could not provide the food they would require to eat (that food also being unique to Australia) and then returned back to Australia, not leaving a single trace of their existence in their travels.Show me how such a reduced population as having only two of every "unclean" animal (Gen 7:2) managed to provide enough genetic diversity to repopulate the entire planet.Find me the ancient writings where keepers of animals notice that they keep on getting new breeds of animal with every single generation.I even asked you a trivially simple question which you failed to even bother to respond to:Where in the creation story do you find humans and animals being created in different ways?I want chapter and verse.Forget the poring through biology journals, science abstracts, and archaeological publications. Just go through the Bible and tell me where in Genesis it describes how god did it and that the way god did it for animals was different than the way god did it for humans.Chapter and verse, please.Strange how in this discussion between us regarding what the Bible says, I've been the only one actually quoting it.Now, if you want to simply invoke magic and say, "It was a miracle," then just get off your duff and say it. Don't pretend that there is any actual scientific evidence for your claims because that is the point behind magic: It defies science. God, being god, can do anything. There is no reason not to think that god created the entire universe exactly as it is precisely two seconds ago with all of our memories of our lives preloaded into our consciousness. And there's absolutely no way to contradict it. God can do anything, remember?So come out with it. Where is your evidence? "The Bible says so" is not evidence about anything other than what the Bible says.It's time for you to be specific.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Maestro232 responds to me:

quote:

---

Notice God then makes ground animals. He does not say, "Let some of the sea creatures evolve into land creatures. Rather, He makes them distinctly.

---

Irrelevant.The question put to you is where you can find in the Bible a passage that shows how the method god uses to create humans is different from the method used to create animals. The claim is that humans are somehow "different" from animals. That the way humans came into being was unique compared to the way animals were.

quote:

---

Then we see man is of different stuff.

---

No, we don't. I still see humans being made from the ground (Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19) and animals being made from the ground (Gen 1:24, Gen 2:19).So where can we conclude that humans and animals were made in any different manner? You might be able to make a case that water-living animals/birds were made differently from land animals/humans since the former were made from the water (Gen 1:20) while the others were made from the ground (Gen 1:24, Gen 2:7), but you haven't explained how humans are any different than cattle in being made from the ground.

quote:

---

Then we see in Chapter 2 of Genesis that Man gets their own chapter.

---

No, the animals are there with humans, too.Genesis 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.So how is this any different from the creation of Adam?Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.What do you think "out of the ground" means and why is it different when god does it to Adam compared to when god does it to the other animals?

quote:

---

Notice carefully please that biological plant life has not yet even grown when God makes man.

---

In direct contradiction to Genesis 1 where the plants were made days before humans. But, this isn't a discusson about the blatant contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2. This is a discussion about humans being created differently from other animals.Genesis 1 is amazingly vague about the creation of humans. It doesn't say anything about it other than god did it. But Genesis 2 is quite specific: Humans are made from the ground. Genesis 3 has god reminding Adam of this fact. Out of dust he was made and to dust he shall return.So if animals were made from the ground and humans were made from the ground, in what way are humans different from other animals due to the way they were created?

quote:

---

Rather, the seeds have been planted but have not grown.

---

Incorrect. The Bible explicitly states that not even this has happened:Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.What do you think "before it was in the earth" means? What do you think "not a man to till the ground" means?Too, the Bible directly states that it was god who planted the garden:Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.This is after the creation of Adam. Those seeds had not been planted because god hadn't planted them yet.

quote:

---

So, Perhaps there were billions of years of animals evolving without any plants around, but I doubt it.

---

Since most animals are herbivores, I would certainly hope you would doubt it. But seeing as how the Bible directly says that plants were created before animals (both Gen 1 and Gen 2), then we cannot accept the reverse as a possibility.

quote:

---

Notice also that God Makes man by breathing into his nostrils. He does not do this to animals.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Did you even bother to read my post before responding?Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.Are you saying that animals are not included in the "all"?

quote:

---

And, I think the Apostle Paul really states the obvious when he says:

---

Paul is irrelevant. We are talking about Genesis.That said, you are misinterpreting 1 Corinthians. Let's take a look at the context in which it was said, shall we?1 Corinthians: 15:38: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.15:39: All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.It would seem that Paul is talking about the physical shape of the body, not the spiritual foundations by which they were created.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

There. I've said it. I've seen it. And I believe it.

---

You saw the flood?You're more than four thousand years old? You saw the creation of humans? You're at least six thousand years old? You're not human since if you saw the creation of humans, you couldn't actually be human, yourself.Do not confuse your spiritual moment that happened after those events with the actual events, themselves.And in the end, if you are going to invoke magic, then stop trying to call it science. Be honest and say you claim this to be true despite what all the evidence says, not because of it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

The Bible shows God communicating with men, but shows no connection with the animals.

---

And yet, god speaks to a man through an animal.Let's not forget, the serpent was an animal. It, like humans, was cursed.Have you considered the possibility that the reason god doesn't bother too much with the animals is because they haven't done anything wrong?

quote:

---

Genesis most certainly was written by ancient humans who did not write the book merely to pass time or create a story.

---

Neither was the Iliad nor the Odyssey. Therefore, they must be true. Zeus lives.

quote:

---

If we take the story of Noah as an allegory with a truth behind it, God must have interacted with all of the animals that came to this boat as well.

---

Incorrect. The Bible directly contradicts this. Instead, god tells Noah to gather them. God does gather them himself. Even if the story of Noah is supposed to be a parable, you cannot contradict the direct narrative.

quote:

---

The story was perhaps NOT literally true as a scientific fact yet WAS literally true as a human/divine interactive lesson.

---

That makes no sense. Something cannot be literally true and not a fact. Lessons don't have to come from things that are literally true (what would be the point of all of Jesus' parables?) but if something is literally true, then it is a fact.You need to consider the possibility that it isn't true at all. Oh, the lesson behind the story might have worth, but that doesn't make the events true.Jesus understood this. Why don't you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!