Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

There is no Faith vs. Science


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
111 replies to this topic

#101
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

Well if we look at the Biblical account we see that it doesn’t describe the creation of life in an unorganized and unstructured manner. God created life organized in groups according to their
environments and traits and reproducing after their kinds, which is exactly what we see today. Of course, he could have created one huge group and just called it “life”, or even created each animal
individually with totally unique traits and using separate mechanisms to reproduce those traits in their offspring. However, the perspective we see in Genesis, and one that I think is reasonable, is that of a
designer with a sense of organization. And the reason I think it makes sense is because it benefits mankind to live in an orderly environment, if it turns out that mankind is important to the creator.

Evolutionists, as I pointed out, did not predict nested hierarchies, but have observed their existence, adjusted the theory accordingly and then, just as you do, proclaim evolution to be a “powerful explanation”.
The only power involved is the power of suggestion.


That's great, but you don't need hierarchies for design or order; you cannot put cars into nested hierarchies, same with rocks/minerals, and both of those things are designed according to creationism; one by us and one by God the very designer that designed life. So how do creationists and IDers explain the nested hierarchy; why is it a hierarchy and not a mix and match of characteristics like we observe in cars and rocks?

I can understand how ToE doesn't predict the morphological hierarchy in a historical setting as it was discovered before ToE came on the scene, but I have a hard time believing that the twin nested hierarchy wasn't predicted by ToE, can you back up that statement? And I still contend either way that ToE explains the nested hierarchies observed very very well through descent and modification. Descent with modification naturally creates hierarchies, and that is powerful evidence whether it was predicted or not.

Having said that, I don’t think you will find many creationists explain the fossil record as being simply “jumbled up in the flood”, and saying that the fossils should appear as a “hodgepodge of random
organisms thrown in together” gives me the impression that you compare the global flood with a big vat of water and just mix and swirl and let everything sink to the bottom.


I have seen creationists say that the fossil record is there in the order that it is because animals ran away from the flood. And I have seen the creationist experiment that compares the global flood with a big vat of water that did just mix and swirl everything; it was done to show that multiple layers can form from a single flood separating out layers by density. I'm not making up creationist ideas, they are real ideas coming from real creationists.

I’m glad you brought up the Tiktaalik, not to be cheeky and arrogant, but because I think it shows how scientists do not objectively study data when presenting evidence. When the Tiktaalik was first
discovered it was proudly touted as being a missing link, and since the place where they found it was where they expected it to be, it looked like they finally had come up with a genuine prediction.
I remember watching Ken Miller talk about it and being really impressed with what he said, because it was really convincing, and Ken is very convincing in the “matter-of-fact” way he presents his
arguments. Unfortunately for him it was debunked:

http://www.examiner....-still-shocking


It wasn't debunked. The people who found Tiktaalik knew the moment that they found it that it wasn't the direct ancestor to tetrapods. They knew when they found it that it was "late" in the transitional time period that they were looking at, and the true ancestor should be dated earlier. Everyone in the scientific community related to the issue knew this, and knew to look earlier in the rocks. But because Tiktaalik has such ideal characteristics for the transition it was submitted to the public in simplified form as the transition. And for practical purposes you can view Tiktaalik as a transitional fossil, the merit of the argument really doesn't change.

The definition of biological evolution is "any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations".
How did you arrive at the conclusion that we are using it differently?


You said that biological evolution was not a point of contention, but it clearly is as creationism is a rejection of biological evolution, at least in its entirety. So is fish to tetrapod biological evolution or not?

When you say that it is really about faith vs evolution (in the beginning of the thread), do you mean evolution to be only about life, or do you mean evolution to be anything and everything that goes against creationism or something else?

The fact that there are ideas about what gravity is does not mean that we know what it is, and if we did know what it is then there would not be considered a theory. You also have thrown the words
“mysterious” and “supernatural”, but failed to show that they apply to the one and not to the other. Ideas are not enough to make that distinction.


A "theory" in science is not promoted to fact or anything of the sort; a full-fledged "theory" is the highest honor an idea can get in science. The point is that we don't need to attribute the supernatural to gravity, and we do know (at least in part) what gravity is and it is an emergent property of physical characteristics. I don't know how to interpret that as supernatural.

That doesn’t make sense. Admittedly the “entity” would have to have “means, power, and intelligence” that greatly exceeds those that we are familiar with, but the sheer magnitude of these qualities
are not enough to associate them with anything supernatural.

And if there wasn’t a designer, then what do you think had the means, power and intelligence to create the universe? Oh, that’s right… nothing…


I'm just saying, you're ID theory seems to be that a non-supernatural entity has the power, intelligence, and means to create entire universes, detail the properties down to the most minuscule level, have such precision to detail the properties of the solar system to support life, then design and seed millions to billions of various lifeforms on said planet. It just seems... farfetched, especially coming from creationists which think that life is so complex we will never be able to create life, and many creationists believe that we are the only life in existence outside of God, not to mention creationists laugh at the prospect of entities in our own universe seeding life on the planet (think Expelled and Dawkins), but entities outside of our universe that aren't God and aren't supernatural is just hunky-dory. I just see a great disconnect between your ideas and major tenets of creationism held by so many. This isn't a shot at you, your basic idea to me appears to be a must if ID is not about the supernatural, however my entire point here is that ID is inherently about God no matter how you look at it, and God is outside the realm of science.

But seriously, where did these non-supernatural entities come from that designed us and the universe we live in down to the detail? Where they designed too, and by whom? Even more powerful and intelligent entities that aren't supernatural?

I'm not the one saying that power, means an intelligence is required to create universes, you are. You don't know what I believe and I suggest not pontificating on that. We are talking about ID as science so I am restricting my arguments to that of science without incorporating teleology. Teleologically we may all be created by a supernatural entity 10,000 years ago, and science may be able to find evidence supporting that idea, but science by its own parameters of inquiry cannot inquire about the supernatural. To take ID out of the supernatural creates inconsistencies in thinking as it was designed to support a supernatural entity creating everything, and that's part of what I am trying to show.

You have misunderstood me. I’m not saying that I agree with everything Ruse says about the ToE, but that there is a part of it that is scientific (observable, repeatable and testable) and
a part that is religious.

If you disagree then please tell me how to you interpret him when he says “evolution is a religion”?


He makes a clear distinction between evolution the ToE and evolution the religion; Ruse is saying that ToE is purely scientific, and people take the ToE and extrapolate from that, right or wrong, and turns it into what he calls "religion".

I am asking at what point does evolution cease to be science and become religion in your mind, and please be specific with examples if possible. You seem to be saying that parts of ToE that Ruse and I call science is religion and I want clarification because there is clearly an impasse between us.

Edited by D-9, 07 January 2013 - 01:41 AM.


#102
Citizenship

Citizenship
  • Members
  • 93 posts

Not everything published should be published; it's not conspiracy it's just reality, it happens to non-creationist literature too.


Who said anything about conspriracy? I thought I had been fairly clear in stating that I don't believe in a conspiracy, and that a conspiracy isn't even necessary,
so what's the story? There is no need to have a conspiracy in a world where people are being indoctrinated from childbirth that certain things are true, despite
the fact that no one knows these things. So do you acknowledge my position regarding this, or are you going to continue to ignore it and try to portray me as some
kind of conspiriacy geek?

And really, an article is judged not just on whether or not it is published, but what the reaction is in the scientific community as scientists know that publication is often the beginning not the end of commentary from scientists. Are people looking at their articles in amazement, not really, and to be blunt myself these articles are anomalies, and after skimming some of them I suspect that a few were published for reasons that had nothing to do with ID.


This discussion has very little to do with your opinions about how the scientific community supposedly reacts. Are you a spokesman for that community? Have you gone
around measuring their level of "amazement"? You see how weak this theory is? You don't have any facts to show that evolution has the ability to do what evolutionists
assert it does, so you have to resort to the "reaction" of the scientific community.

Has the reaction of the scientific community has always been correct? Of course not! So by your own admission we can see that you are basing your belief in evolution
on a faulty standard.

You have 50 articles in 7 years, that's a little more than one article every two months, that is really low numbers considering what all encompasses ID and the claims creation scientists have made in the past decades about sweeping reform and ID being the next great paradigm in all sciences of the 21st century. The point is that ID is not a burgeoning area of scientific inquiry, even skimming the summaries presented in the link just about all of them are about attacking evolution instead of positively supporting ID. Even if we go with the presupposition that evolution is false, you still have to provide support for your own theory, in this case ID, and that's a real problem with ID. If we go with papers that positively support ID, we're probably looking at a paper a year or something, that is not impressive at all; a single department at a university will put out more published papers a year than all the creation scientists of the world will publish that positively support ID in a year.


How many articles do you expect to get published given the level of opposition? You have already made the point that the consensus of the scientific community is
strongly opposed to creationism, and yet you are trying to argue that there should be more papers published!

To be fair YECs are known for hoaxes and such in science


Well, to be fair, evolutionists are known for hoaxes in science. Here are a few:

*** removed video ... videos are to be posted in teh video section only. ***

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist.

The peppered moth experiment is still taught as proving evolution. Apart from the mind numbingly obvious fact that there were both light and dark variants of the moth biston betularia before the changes in tree bark colour discussed in the work, and that therefore it was merely a cyclical variation in slightly different varieties of the same species, it is now established that he researcher Kettlewell faked his results.

and even Schweitzer herself says that the fossil is ancient


Of course she does! She is an evolutionist! And although you claimed earlier on that "if the evidence doesn't fit with creationism, it is invalid according to creation scientists",
we can clearly see that this is exactly what evolutionists do.

I do think once scientists realized that this wasn't another creationist hoax the data was well received overall.


Are you making things up? Please show me one shred of evidence that supports that idea. Mary Schweitzer wasn't a lone wolf, she was working under Jack Horner, one
of the America's best-known paleontologists. Don't you think he would know if he had a creationist working for him? If it was a creationist hoax it would have been cleared
up almost immediately.

I don't know that much about dating, but I did find out that they dated at least one of the bones through amino racemization, which tells me they probably did date the soft tissue remnants to ensure it wasn't contamination, and it came back with an old age.


Both this, and Schweitzers opinions about YEC are distractions from the point at hand which concerned the eagerness of scientists to have their precious theories challenged.
Jack Horner was offered $23,000 to have the bones carbon dated, which he refused to do.

But since you brought it up, lets talk about dating. Where did you read about the amino racemization dating of these bones? TalkOrigins? What TalkOrigins won't tell you is
that amino racemization dating is unreliable:

http://www.detecting...aciddating.html

"Because of these problems AAR dating of bone and teeth (teeth in different locations in the same mouth have been shown to have very different AAR ages) is considered
to be an extremely unreliable practice even by mainstream scientists. "

What they also won't tell you is that C14 is being found in places it should not be found:

http://kgov.com/dating-a-dinosaur

"Yet 14C is everywhere it shouldn't be. Unless from a secondary source, like contamination or neutron capture (described below), anything millions of years old should have NO Carbon-14. However, scientists are consistently finding C-14, as reported in 2011 in the journal PLoS One for an allegedly 80-million year old mosasaur, and as reported elsewhere in natural gas, limestone, fossil wood, coal, oil, graphite, marble, the ten dinosaurs (described above), and even in supposedly billion-year-old diamonds. A secondary assumption by old-earth scientists proposes that the C-14 in diamonds (coal, etc.) must have come from N-14 (or C-13, etc.) and neutron capture. Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical) told RSF that 14C in allegedly million-year-old specimens is an "anomaly." However, an anomaly is something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. Because modern carbon exists in significant quantities, far above the reliability threshold of the AMS labs doing the tests, these results can no longer be called anomalies! It is now expected that organic specimens supposedly millions of years old will yield maximum C-14 ages of only thousands of years!"

I don't know where you got the 10,000 figure


(Nature, vol.352, August 1, 1991, p.381)

DNA degradation is not fully understood, and multiple factors from climate to soil chemistry are known to change the rate


Nothing that disagrees with the ToE is going to be considered "fully understood". The rate at which DNA breaks down was determined in the lab, under controlled conditions, not in the soil or anywhere else where the rate would be even faster.

It takes time for fossilization, the very fact that dinosaur bones are fossilized speaks to their old age. Bones shouldn't be fossilized at all if the universe is 6,017 years old as YEC claims, or even the 10,000 mark often cited. Soft tissue remnants have been discovered in other dinosaurs, but it requires certain conditions for the remnants to survive, and it is unlikely that many bones will have them. Even with bones younger we do not find soft tissue remnants; it's a clear negative correlation between age and tissue available.


That is totally incorrect. Fossilization occurs rapidly, the entire process of mineralization must occur before the organism can decay. In other words, the time for fossilization must be shorter than the decay time. Most biologic materials decay quickly. Decay can start within a few hours or less, and rarely takes more than a few weeks. Even bones suffer complete dissolution in a few years.

#103
thomas t

thomas t

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts

The fact that there are ideas about what gravity is does not mean that we know what it is, and if we did know what it is then there would not be considered a theory. You also have thrown the words
“mysterious” and “supernatural”, but failed to show that they apply to the one and not to the other. Ideas are not enough to make that distinction.


A "theory" in science is not promoted to fact or anything of the sort; a full-fledged "theory" is the highest honor an idea can get in science. The point is that we don't need to attribute the supernatural to gravity, and we do know (at least in part) what gravity is and it is an emergent property of physical characteristics. I don't know how to interpret that as supernatural.


Hello D-9,
have a good new year.

Let me just add something to what Citizenship already has said. I think we should differentiate between what a scientific theory does perform and what it does not. Gravitation: you can do experimenting about that. How many experiments, that show common descent, can be made? How many experiments that show how fossil records are generated can be effactuated?

You can observe, as Citizenship said, some effects of the fact that animals did live here for at least some thousand years...., but you can't repeat evolution in and of itself (I mean in a large scale in a sense of evolution of all the animals and not only the development of a new rip bone in foxes or something). In contrast, you can let drop your pencil as often as you want.


Thomas

#104
Citizenship

Citizenship
  • Members
  • 93 posts

That's great, but you don't need hierarchies for design or order; you cannot put cars into nested hierarchies, same with rocks/minerals, and both of those things are designed according to creationism; one by us and one by God the very designer that designed life. So how do creationists and IDers explain the nested hierarchy; why is it a hierarchy and not a mix and match of characteristics like we observe in cars and rocks?


Creationists are usually criticized for making such comparisons and here you are doing the same thing. Life is vastly different than rocks and cars, and evidence of design and order does not need to be ubiquitous in order for it to be considered designed. Hierarchies might not be needed, but they are convenient for us in that they make it easier for us to understand and learn about the various forms of life around us. It also makes sense from a design perspective that organisms sharing the same environment and so on would have a similar genetic make-up.

I can understand how ToE doesn't predict the morphological hierarchy in a historical setting as it was discovered before ToE came on the scene, but I have a hard time believing that the twin nested hierarchy wasn't predicted by ToE, can you back up that statement? And I still contend either way that ToE explains the nested hierarchies observed very very well through descent and modification. Descent with modification naturally creates hierarchies, and that is powerful evidence whether it was predicted or not.


If the twin nested hierarchy was a prediction made by evolutionists then you wouldn't have any trouble at all showing me an older document where this tree was originally mapped out. Now you can easily sit and look at a modern document that has been edited down through the years and get all impressed with how everything "just seems to fit" and tell me that you think that it is evidence of descent with modification, but the fact remains that there is not a shred of scientific evidence that any modifications have the power of doing what evolutionists so badly want them to do. The fossil record is full of huge gaps and the theory of punctuated equilibrium testifies to that.

I have seen creationists say that the fossil record is there in the order that it is because animals ran away from the flood. And I have seen the creationist experiment that compares the global flood with a big vat of water that did just mix and swirl everything; it was done to show that multiple layers can form from a single flood separating out layers by density. I'm not making up creationist ideas, they are real ideas coming from real creationists.


You will most likely find a whole lot of ideas floating around, so have I, but just trowing out a couple of them like this proves nothing. And just because someone does an experiment to show how layers separate by density, does not mean that they are explaining the entire flood by their experiment.

It wasn't debunked. The people who found Tiktaalik knew the moment that they found it that it wasn't the direct ancestor to tetrapods. They knew when they found it that it was "late" in the transitional time period that they were looking at, and the true ancestor should be dated earlier. Everyone in the scientific community related to the issue knew this, and knew to look earlier in the rocks. But because Tiktaalik has such ideal characteristics for the transition it was submitted to the public in simplified form as the transition. And for practical purposes you can view Tiktaalik as a transitional fossil, the merit of the argument really doesn't change.


Why on earth would I want to view it as a transitional fossil? I don't even know why you mentioned it in the first place. It is a fossil of a lobe-finned fish. As usual, there is nothing in the fossil record showing a smooth transition from or to any other fish, tetrapod or anything else.

A "theory" in science is not promoted to fact or anything of the sort; a full-fledged "theory" is the highest honor an idea can get in science. The point is that we don't need to attribute the supernatural to gravity, and we do know (at least in part) what gravity is and it is an emergent property of physical characteristics. I don't know how to interpret that as supernatural.

Describing gravity or its effects does not mean that we know what it is, and I'm not trying to get you to interpret gravity as supernatural, I just want you to tell me how you determine what is supernatural and what isn't.

#105
Citizenship

Citizenship
  • Members
  • 93 posts


There is a virus that has the ability to imitate behavior in order to deceive antibodies. None of these things could possibly work without an incredible amount of logic being in place. So approaching
this from a scientific point of view we can only come to the conclusion that it has been designed. Programs do not program themselves. If they did I would be out of business, since I work as a
software developer.


Well, first of all, happy new year!

This is an interesting point, althought I am not sure we analyzed the logical consequences of it. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, that the natural design recursion stops at our world. That is, design of living beings and viruses on earth are due to supernatural intervention and not aliens.

The question is: who designed such a complex and intelligent virus? I can only see the following alternatives:

1) it is the same designer of human beings, e.g. God. But that would mean that God had active hand in making this world (with things like smallpox) a fallen world. I think we can agree that this is theologically untenable, if we are the sole responsibles of our misery.

2) it is another designer in competition with God. I doubt this is is acceptable. It would mean that there are two creative forces with more or less the same power and we and viruses are the results of an arm race between these two designers. For starters, it is not clear why God does not simply remove the virus from creation instead of complicating our design with countermeasures (antibodies). As a sofware designer, what would you do? Create countermeasures for a bug in your programs, or remove the bug? On top of that, that would be indistinguishable from dualism (two equally powerful gods, one good and the other evil, in the style of Zoroastrianism). To make things even worse, good and evil would be design dependent. God is good for us, but His competion is good for the virus; i.e. goodness would be anthropocentric.

3) Nobody designed the virus. But that would mean that complex and "intelligent" entities can arise undesigned.

Which of the three cases (assuming I did not forget other cases) is more plausible?

Ciao

- viole


Hej Viole, och god fortsättning på det nya året till dig också! :)

Weell... should I pick door number 1, or door number 2 (door number 3 is of course out of the question :emot-shakehead: )

Actually I think door number 1 is closest, although the conclusion that God had an active hand in the fall assumes that God originally designed viruses to
behave the way they do now, which is incorrect. The biblical acount teaches that everything in creation deteriorated when sin came into the world, and
agents such as viruses that would have had functions that were exclusively beneficial from the beginning were distorted from that time onward.

Edited by Citizenship, 07 January 2013 - 05:09 PM.


#106
Citizenship

Citizenship
  • Members
  • 93 posts
Hi Viole, yes Swedish is a beautiful language, not my native tongue, but the language that I most often use since I have lived in Sweden most of my life.

The reason that there are immune systems and viruses is little too prone to speculation for my taste so I don't want to delve too deply into things that I for one have on way of knowing. But I will say this. The function of a virus might only need to be distorted, rather than designed, in order for it to turn from benevolent to malevolent. This, in fact, it the way the most powerful and deceptive software viruses work - they exploit weaknesses in existing code.

And yes, as a developer I prefer as simple a solution as possible. But just because an explanation is simple doesn't mean that it is correct, especially in a world where nothing seems to be simple. what is the simple evolutionary explanation as to how a catapillar forms a cocoon, melts into goo, and then emerges as a buterfly? Simple whiteboard sketches of hierarchies are one thing, but reality with all its variations are another.

Now I posed the question as to how intelligent behaviour could have developed in organisms such as cells and viruses, and rather than answer the question, you turn it around with things that you consider inconsistent from a theological point of view. But what is your answer to the question? What then is the "simple" explanation that you consider outweighs that of a designer? Or am I suppose to be so knocked over by the fact that there are hierarchies in the animal kingdom that I shouldn't concern myself with such details?

Edited by Citizenship, 08 January 2013 - 03:07 PM.


#107
Citizenship

Citizenship
  • Members
  • 93 posts
To all, it has come to my attention that this thread has deviated from the original intention of the Outer Court, which is not to discuss science, but to give outsiders a change to learn about our faith. In respect to that I have decided to discontinue all discussions here. Thanks everyone for an interesting exchange. I wish you all the best. /Citizenship.

#108
thomas t

thomas t

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts
Hello D-9,
now that this thread has somehow come to an end, can I ask you a question? Did you learn anything out of this discussion? I mean in a sense that you feel perhaps any closer attracted to the gospel of our Lord and Christ Jesus now?

[...]That's great, but [...]


Have a good evening
Thomas

#109
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,027 posts

Don't forget what the great Eddington once said. New ideas do not usually arise because everybody suddenly is convinced by the new paradigm. They become successful because the generation that holds the old ideas dies out.....


And

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

Therein

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

Lies The Rub

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. John 3:16-20

~

Believe

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

#110
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,027 posts

Because they are perfectly aware that Christianity has no way to survive in a changing world where science is so highly respected, where secularism and naturalism are occupying academia and are becoming the standard Zeitgeist for the next intellectual elite. Stopping people of faith to argument scientifically, logically and philosophically in order to defend faith, is intellectual suicide, in my opinion. You have no way to win the newest generations by doing that, I am afraid.....


Suicide

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:36

Is The Way Of The Lie

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

And To Hang Your Heart On Science So Called

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Is The Way Of The Fool

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1

Be Wise

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

And Be Blessed Beloved

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13

Love. Joe

#111
j102

j102

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts


There is a virus that has the ability to imitate behavior in order to deceive antibodies. None of these things could possibly work without an incredible amount of logic being in place. So approaching
this from a scientific point of view we can only come to the conclusion that it has been designed. Programs do not program themselves. If they did I would be out of business, since I work as a
software developer.


Well, first of all, happy new year!

This is an interesting point, althought I am not sure we analyzed the logical consequences of it. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, that the natural design recursion stops at our world. That is, design of living beings and viruses on earth are due to supernatural intervention and not aliens.

The question is: who designed such a complex and intelligent virus? I can only see the following alternatives:

1) it is the same designer of human beings, e.g. God. But that would mean that God had active hand in making this world (with things like smallpox) a fallen world. I think we can agree that this is theologically untenable, if we are the sole responsibles of our misery.

2) it is another designer in competition with God. I doubt this is is acceptable. It would mean that there are two creative forces with more or less the same power and we and viruses are the results of an arm race between these two designers. For starters, it is not clear why God does not simply remove the virus from creation instead of complicating our design with countermeasures (antibodies). As a sofware designer, what would you do? Create countermeasures for a bug in your programs, or remove the bug? On top of that, that would be indistinguishable from dualism (two equally powerful gods, one good and the other evil, in the style of Zoroastrianism). To make things even worse, good and evil would be design dependent. God is good for us, but His competion is good for the virus; i.e. goodness would be anthropocentric.

3) Nobody designed the virus. But that would mean that complex and "intelligent" entities can arise undesigned.

Which of the three cases (assuming I did not forget other cases) is more plausible?

Ciao

- viole



you know what , atheist have a lot more faith than believers do. you have to be blind and ignorant to not see designs and order among the universe. also I do not see how a person can believe that everything was made out of nothing and I doubt many of the so called intellectuals even understand the theory of A self created universe.

#112
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,460 posts
This thread is closed for review. It may or may not be re-opened.

God bless,
GE




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network