tdrehfal

I'm reading a book by Dr. Armand M Nicholi called "The Question of God." It's about Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis and each of their thoughts about God. Page 20 of the book says,

"Historian Peter Gay refers to the 'sizable pockets of anticlericalism and of secularists contempt for all religion' that pervaded European culture during Freud's years in medical school. Many of these 'pockets' involved the medical community, whose acceptance Freud strongly desired - for his professional advancement early in his career, and later, for the acceptance of his theories."

This got me thinking. Do you think there's an efeebling sense of groupthink going on in the scientific community? If I'm a student of science who wants a career, am I going to go against the flow of what everybody else - my professor, colleagues, and possible employers - think? It's like the idea of tell the professor what he/she wants to hear or thinks and you get the grade. Just a thought.

Let's hash it out with love and respect,

Joe

Okay, "groupthink" would be peer pressure by what your describing. Yes, peer pressure happens everywhere. And the word "groupthink" is scary.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still only a theory.

Just so you know, a scientific theory has a very different meaning from the everyday use of the word theory. Click me. I cringe whenever I hear some say "just a theory" or "only a theory," because 99% of the time it means that person does not understand what a scientific theory is. (If you can't see where I'm coming from; imagine someone says Christianity is just a religion!)

Cite any evidence you have for this theory having moved from the status of theory into fact please.

The general consensus is that evolution by natural selection is both a theory and a fact.

I'll be the first to admit a scientific theory is what you stated if people will admit that abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis.

It's tough when people keep redifining words by filtering them through what appears to be The Ministry of Truth (if you're not familiar with 1984, it's a good read!)...

This would be the correct definition of theory, but there are people on here now saying that a theory is a theory just because a lot of people accept the idea.

That's not true. Like you've already said, a theory is supported by evidence and not just the fact that people like or accept a hypothesis.

The "Brights" movement would be a nice example too. So I guess im a "Dim". The brights, the dims, the "polits" the "proles"... what on earth is

this country turning into. You must think in newspeak. That's "goodthought". We don't want to be a "badthinker". Badthinkers are prone to

thought crime and need to be eliminated by the Thought Police. Don't challenge the Brights!

Why anyone would waste their time doing anything like this is beyond me. What does it prove? That lots of people in the scientific community don't believe

in creation? Why would you be out to "prove" that if indeed its true its useless information other than to bash creationists by saying they're idiots for being

creationists. So thanks for admitting there are people that want to bash creationists just for being creationists.

There's not much to do except poke fun. Creation science doesn't deserve what little serious attention it gets. Project Steve meets Creationists on their own level. It is in fact a direct refutation to a common Creationist claim. Seanpont repeated that claim above, so I pointed him in the direction of the Project.

Maybe you should chastise him for bringing up the issue instead of myself for responding to it.

I will chastise noone; except people doing things simply for 'poking fun' which has nothing to do with science.

"I'm glad you admit that abiogenesis is not evolution, so thanks for stating that it's just a hypothesis and doesn't even make it a theory. It's not really even a good hypothesis. I bet Miller and Urey would even admit that."

I fail to see how calling on god to solve our problems is any better than a hypothesis that is at least based on some level of evidence. There is no evidence that god created life, so even if I have one tiny piece of evidence for abiogenesis it is more plausible. Can you address the problems that a god hypothesis creates rather than just saying that abiogenesis is not a good theory. I

"Evolutionists have failed to scientifically prove their theories"

They've done a much better job of it than Creation Scientists

"hoaxes, fraud, deceptions, and speculations"

Actually, there are hoaxes and frauds going on all the time, but they are always weeded out pretty quickly. Are you trying to tell me that everyone who believes evolution is in on it? Because that's what it would take for a hoax of this scale to pass unnoticed.

"I also believe there's enough scientific evidence for creation and a young earth that's contrary to an old earth which evolution teaches"

The various forms of radioisotope dating alone disprove young earth creationism. You've got a lot of evidence to discount if you believe the universe was created after the domestication of the dog.

"there's enough evidence for design in nature, which indicates intelligence and a Creator"

evolution naturally creates the appearance of design. I will get to evolution later.

"Too many things exist today that would prove it impossible to come by chance as evolution teaches"

evolution is NOT chance.

"impossible for life to spring forth from no life such as Spontaneous Generation which evolution teaches"

Life did not 'spring forth' and abiogenisis is not part of evolution. There is no general consensus among scientists on the details of abiogenesis but there are a lot of good theories that are based on more then a self contradicting book. The main reason there is no consensus is that good scientists test their results experimentally before stating them as fact (which is more than I can say for the scientists proposing the god hypothesis).

"Biology itself would indicate that only life can produce life."

Obviously you are saying that god is the life that created our life, but if he is life, doesn't he need a creator? Doesn't that creator need a creator? Does that go any further towards solving our origins?

"I'm not a scientist" Really? I never would have guessed.

"To believe that a puddle of primordial soup would become living cells and organisms would require a leap of faith in the first place, but then for these simple organisms to evolve into complex cells and organisms would require another giant leap of faith, but then to believe these complex organisms divided themselves into male & female organisms"

There was no distinct time when one form of life became another, it's a VERY slow process.

"Evolution has failed to explain how life is made up of male and female species"

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Evolution has not failed to explain it, there's just more than one theory of how it happened. And as I said, scientists like to learn the correct answer through experiment before they call it fact because they can't call both fact. I'm not going to go into the theories here, a few seconds of google should answer your questions.

"spring forth" There's that phrase again.

"Here's a scienticfic link" In what way is the link scientific?

"One cell in the human body has enough information to create a blueprint more complicated than a blueprint of New York City" Wow, really? How many New Yorks do you think god is?

"if just one part of that information mal-functions, then life ceases to exist"

Actually, one part malfunctioning is the essence of evolution.

"How much faith does it take that all that information gathered together into one cell so life can exist came by chance"

I'd imagine it would take a lot, but I don't know of anyone who believes this. Once again, evolution has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANCE.

You mention faith quite a bit but that has nothing to do with it. People who believe evolution do so because they can see the evidence for themselves and have thought logically and reasonably about it. There is no faith involved.

"Evolutionists believe life started out with simple cells or orgainisms, which adventually evolved into complexity" We sure do.

"but Creation Scientists believe life was complexed from the start just like they are now" does that really solve the problem of complexity?

"If we looked at a picture of beautiful designs on a wall, then we would automatically believe a person with some intelligence created or painted that picture" Ahhh, the common sense argument. What does common sense tell you about fairies, unicorns and Santa? Because they're based on about as much as Creation Science. A book said god's real and created the universe, you say? Well how many books do you think say unicorns and fairies are real? How can something be false if so many people believe it, you ask? How many children believe in Santa?

"We might also consider how the earth is exactly far enough distance from the sun to support life on earth, if it was just a little further away from the sun, then the earth would be too cold for life as we know it, but if the earth was a little closer then we all would burn up" Oh, so for you to believe our world is not created you would need us to be put in a truly random spot? Ok, so because of the emptiness of space, the odds are almost certain we will wind up in the middle of nowhere. Uh oh, now we die from cold and are no longer around to ask silly questions about why we're here. The anthropic principal is that assuming there is at least one habitable planet in the universe, with everything perfectly tuned for our survival, we are going to find ourselves on it. If our planet wasn't so perfect, we wouldn't be here to ask why our planet was so perfect would we? And our planet isn't perfect is it? There are many places that are uninhabitable. Why did god make the arctic so dang cold if it was designed for us? Why do we have so little drinkable water? Why is the earth 80% ocean?

"Where did intelligence come from itself" Intelligence is advantageous. A smarter animal can evade its foes better and live longer to pass on its smart genes.

"or morals for that matter" They sure as hell didn't come from the bible. Have you actually read the Old Testament? (link deleted)

"sprung forth" there it is again

"The claim by some that the DNA between man and monkey is 98.3 % identical amuses Biologist Dr. Gary Parker, because he states that the DNA genes inherited from our own mother's and fathers are only 93 % similar at best"

There is a difference in the way these 2 percentages were measured I suspect. The man to monkey one was probably a measure of the entire gene map of both species, which includes all the variation possibilities, so it's like comparing every human to every monkey. The other one was probably a measure of you only to your mother and father only, so that's only comparing one person to another. If you used the same measure for the second one as you did for the first, it would be 100% (because we are the same species). And how would god explain such a result anyway? Even if he did create us, that wouldn't explain this percentage. Are you trying to tell me that DNA itself is wrong?

"Dr. Gary Parker also says that a jelly fish is 98 % water! A cloud is 98 % water! A watermelon is 98% water" The other 2% is the important part. Almost everything contains more water than you'd suspect. And where did you get the idea that clouds are 98% water? I would have thought they were much closer to 100%, just a guess though.

"Then we must also believe that water melons, clouds, and jelly fish are the same as us, because we are 98 % water too"

Actually we are about 90% water at birth, 70% at adulthood and 50% at old age. On average it is about 65% water. And besides, that is about the worst logic I've ever heard. You obviously have the same water content as other people (some people if not everyone) but are you the same as them?

"So if we believe in per cents" what, so now your attacking them too? When will the madness end?

"He says that the fundamental assumptions which evolution is based on, that living cells rose from Non Living matter by spontaneous generation as a result of a chain of chemical reactions of a hypotheical primordial soup are not at all confirmed by Paleontology" Actually the only assumption made by evolution is that there is a certain amount of variation between generations which isn't an assumption at all because it is observable (for example, 4 leaf clovers are mutations). Once again he is reffering to abiogenisis.

"He said all biological groups from bacteria of blue green algae to man appear abruptly in the fossil record without any links connecting them to each other" Well he's wrong. the evolution of whale blow holes for example is verifiable by intermediaries (I'm only picking that one because I was looking it up the other day when someone claimed it was an example of irreducible complexity, haven't these people heard of google?).

"He further went on to say, that the fact is: That after nearly two centuries of intensed research the paleontological evidence for evolution theory is not only rare but highly questionable. He said the point is: If evolution really happened, then the evidence would be in great abundance and incontestable. Museums would be over flowing with fossils clearly documenting.the transitions between the various biological groups. Yet there are none!"

Well, there's not none, they're just rare. But this is more due to the rarity of the required conditions for fossilisation than evolution.

"The very complexed DNA RNA protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start! If Not! Life systems couldn't exist."

Look at it this way. The systems that are better at replicating themselves are more likely to survive right? Who says there was only one attempt?

"The only logical explanation is that this vast quanity of information came from intelligence"

Wait, wait, stop everything. Did he just call god a logical explanation?!

"The evolutionists do not want to accept this self evident fact, as a result they are producing theories which are of no scientific value, because they don't provide any idea how new genetic information is produced"

At the most fundamental level, scientific theories have to make predictions. Evolution does, but in what way is God predictable?

"From what we can say observing the human chromosomes or the human DNA and comparing it to other species is that man is original, and man has not arrived from any other species"

If it's so self evident, why are these people in such a minority. "Over 600 Scientists" is a drop in the ocean.

"The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres"

Polonium isn't necessarily the first isotope in the chain that creates the polonium that creates the halo. (link deleted) Really, you need to learn to use google.

"Why Is Only Evolution Being Taught In Many Schools And Creation Science Not Being Taught? Because The Schools In America Are Being Dictated By Atheistic Humanists!" Heard of scientific method? Anything that doesn't follow it is not science, and these theories don't even come close. That is why they're not being taught as science. The rules of scientific method may seem arbitrary, but they are all derivable from logic. I do so on my website: (link deleted)

"Many are accepting evolution theory as fact and science, when there are many Scientists who say there's no evidence to support the evolution theory as fact." Actually these 'scientists', and I use the term loosely, are in the minority. A really really really small minority.

"real scientific facts, which have been discovered and would support the creation theory are not allowed to be taught in schools." I refute most of those 'facts' on my site: (Link deleted)

"Why? Because anything that would suggest creation in school is considered to be religion"

That's because it is. Would you honestly think to try to refute a generally accepted scientific fact if the bible didn't tell you to?

"Some believe evolution to be a religion in itself" except that it's based on reason, logic and evidence, and if evidence against it was found, we would reject it. Can you say the same about Christianity? It's not like evidence against evolution is impossible to find. According to the young earth theory, fossils were created rapidly during the biblical flood. So if a cat were found on the same level (and therefore same time geologically) as when the first microbe fossils formed, it would disprove evolution (though not necessarily prove creation science, just bolster it a bit).

Now for evolution. I mentioned the assumption of natural variation. So an animal with ever so slightly faster legs is born. When it is pitted against other animals of it's species in a survival of the fittest world, it is more likely to come out on top and reproduce because it can escape predators easier and capture prey more effectively. Its children will all have slightly better legs than the rest of the population and slowly, the population will be overrun with these animals with better legs. An advance in the species is made. These variations are very very rare, and each advance takes many generations to become the dominant one making evolution a very slow process, much slower then I'm guessing you have it laid out in your head. If a varied group becomes isolated from the rest of the population, the different conditions will cause different traits to be more advantageous, such as different coloured fur etc. This is speciation.

Since the only requirement of evolution is variation, it is undeniable that evolution is happening to some extent. The question is, is it enough to explain all the complexity around us? If we ignore abiogenesis and say that we are starting from the tiny single celled organisms it forms, then there is sufficient evidence to make evolution the generally accepted explanation for all life. Besides, invoking god because we can't explain something strait away is no way to do science. It creates more problems than it solves (see my site for more on this).

Believe what you want, but don't call it science.

I'm glad you admit that abiogenesis is not evolution, so thanks for stating that it's just a hypothesis and doesn't even make it a theory. It's not really even

a good hypothesis. I bet Miller and Urey would even admit that.

You talk about a 98.3% similarity to "monkeys". There are 264 species of "monkeys". I doubt you've mapped them all. Get real.

I don't know if this similarity issue is real or not but you certainly haven't mapped every "monkey" Maybe you're referring to one

species, a chimpanzee perhaps?

Common sense tells me that, according to evolutionary theory, unicorns are certainly possible and if we defined a unicorn as basically a "horned horse"

and a horn gave a horse an advantage in its environment than unicorns would be probable. So I guess you believe in unicorns after all. There isn't

an entire book that claims to be eyewitness testimony about Santa Clause that matches up with things he's done in history. But i'm glad you admit

that "common sense" is of no value to you.

Saying slowly getting an ever slightly faster set of legs has nothing to do with being able to outrun predators if the speed differential is so negligible

that they can't outrun them. Why don't you factor in the predator-to-prey speed gap and see if this really works.

You confuse acquired knowledge over time with intelligence as though you spitting back textbooks verbatim means you're the one who can

claim to have come up with the idea. The fact that humans can know produce guns would be knowledge over time. This doesn't really

seem to happen in the animal kingdom outside of humans. So, unless I know how to make a gun from scratch, my intelligence isn't

different than those that existed thousands of years ago and I could be walking in the forest and eaten by a bear rather than shooting

it. So I guess intelligence isn't as advantageous as you think it is. Functional Advantages appear to be more so. I can't outrun

a lot of animals and a lot of them can kill me. What my intelligence as a human does is tell me to stay away from areas of a complex

ecosystem that have predators that I can't kill. The aliens in the movie "alien" or "aliens" are a better example of something that

evolution should produce. Assuming their intelligence is equal to humans, or even if it is moreso, look who has the advantage and

why. Now apply that to evolutionary advantages. They are way better adapted to the environment and simply HARD TO KILL.

It seems like being HARD TO KILL, in the physical sense, rather than intellectual sense would be the logical outcome of evolution.

Intelligence requires one to think and acquire knowledge and pass it on, being physically hard to kill is much, much easier.

Hoaxes and frauds prove that perhaps we shouldn't trust scientists so blindly if it takes them decades to figure out that they were

duped and they don't scritinize data and evidence without bias enough to prevent this kind of duping from occuring. There's no

excuse for these kinds of hoaxes in the scientific community because this supposedly infallible peer-review should prevent this

from happening. Hoaxes are a product of utter incompetence.

I'm not going to discuss the dates/rocks/young earth/old earth since there are various theological stances on it.

Radiometric dating certainly does have problems. And you're supposed to be using multiple dating methods

to confirm samples not just one.

All it takes is a glance at youtube to prove that morals aren't coming from evolution, either. People saying we need to burn every Bible

and "eliminate creationists from the gene pool" aren't biased?

...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

Why anyone would waste their time doing anything like this is beyond me. What does it prove? That lots of people in the scientific community don't believe

in creation? Why would you be out to "prove" that if indeed its true its useless information other than to bash creationists by saying they're idiots for being

creationists. So thanks for admitting there are people that want to bash creationists just for being creationists.

Actually if look deeply into the Word of God it actually reads that the Universe and all Creation ring with the original resonance of, "Let there be Light!".

OK, see, you've made a bridge between literal sound (God speaking so loud he makes bubbles glow) and symbolic/spiritual sound. The student was talking about literal sound, as in a wave of vibration. A physical force that can be measured. I enjoyed reading your post, Matthitjah, but as a scientific-minded person your post struck me much more like poetry than science. In order to assess a scientific claim, we must look at it scientifically, not poetically. If you think I'm just being a grumpy old agnostic, rejecting the student's hypothesis in a kneejerk reaction, consider this:

Q: Where does the light in the universe come from?

A: From nuclear fusion in stars, not sonoluminescence in bubbles.

Boom, theory refuted.

I admit this theory seems rather strange to put it midly but that aside, the statement "Let there be light!" could be the literal creation of light. The light in the universe

does not come from nuclear fusion in stars, it comes from photons or lightwaves, wether it be from a lightbulb, a star, a candle flame, or anything that emits

these photons can produce light. A shooting star produces light and it isn't even a star. The northern lights are lights also. No stars there. God created light

and seperated it from the darkness. It might be a creation of the photon or more specifically the CONCEPT of light. Sound is also another thing that really

has no definition the way I see it. It needs a medium to travel in, like air. Sound is defined as a waveform, what the heck is that? Only something that

can be measured by the effects its having. The waveform is obviously real because it effects the air but the air is not the sound, the waveform is the

sound. It doesn't need air though, sonar works. It's really unknown what the actual waveform is other than a concept that's being used to describe

the mechanical effects it has on a medium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

It's just a waveform that requires a medium. Wiki explains it perfectly, but WHY does the waveform happen. If I pluck a string on a guitar it vibrates and for some reason

vibrations travel in waveform as long as they have a medium to exist on. Light and the absence of light need to be separate, of course. If we define space as something

rather than nothing than that could be said to be the medium that light requires to travel. Is darkness the absence of light or is light the absence of darkness? It's relative.

Our universe is very strange. Is the earth moving around the sun? In relation to the sun. Is the sun moving? In relation to other things. Is the universe moving?

According to big bang theory it is moving, it's expanding. Are objects still being 'dragged along' with space? Weirdness. There are probably quantum physics explanations

for these but I consider that field to be very hypothetical. Besides all this, If God exists in a separate unperceivable dimension, the 'sound' traveled in that dimension

and indicated to the beings in that dimension God's decision to create light in our universe. I wouldn't say God's audible voice was heard in the universe, due to the

nature of God that's debatable... He could do it being God, but it doesn't seem necessary.

Creationism (in all of it's forms) is also only a theory. (Scientifically - it is what it is folks, don't throw darts at me please smile.gif ) I personally believe in God as the creator of everything. Jesus is my Lord and Savior as well; but in order to be honest, I have to admit that Creation is as much a "Theory" as any other.

The problem with creationism is that you cannot rule out the Creator using any alternative methods to bring about the evidences we see today. The hypothesis cannot therefore be falsified and is unscientific.

Ok, enough. We can falsify the creator if we can find something in nature that creates a code (organized information) by itself. If you can find a code that doesn't

derive from intelligence you can falsify the creator's existence. DNA is a code. No, it's not like a code, anologous to a code, or related to as a code. It is a code,

period. Information Theory would define DNA as a code. Every code comes from a will or mind, hence a creator. Find me a code that doesn't come from a

will or mind and you can falsify my hypothesis. I predict by my hypothesis that you will not find a code that doesn't come from at least some form of intelligence.

To make things clear, a code would be organized information that serves a purpose which can exist independent of the medium used. The information in the

DNA can exist this way, because that's what it is: information. And do not try to argue that information is not real, because it produces real effects. Information

even though it is not "tangible", is most certainly real. What are you reading right now? Words. You're not reading LCD pixels, electron-to-phosphrous beams or any such

thing, you're reading real words and you can speak them and write them down on paper and represent them in binary by ASCII code and they're still real words

because they produce real effects. Your response to this post would be a real effect, and it would be the same if i wrote it to you verbatim and you mailed me

back a letter. I want a code that doesn't come from intelligence.

"Mockery is an important social tool for squelching stupidity. I

An interesting topic. I would like to hear from you all.

What do YOU think? Is Christ the Eternal Jehovah, God of the Old Testament?

Christ is the image of the invisible God. We can safely say that he is indeed the same God of the OT, in man-form. He is literally God in the flesh.

This does not however mean that the God the father and God the Son cannot be metaphysically seperate since Christ sits at God's right hand.

What you're really driving at is a discussion of the Trinity. If you read a "new world translation" of the scriptures I would suggest getting rid of

that and getting something else... any other standard Bible should do.

I recall reading in Scientific American a few years ago about researchers attempting that very thing.

Viruses have actually been used to fight bacterial infections. There was a really interesting Nova special on PBS about doctors in the Former Soviet Republic of Georgia using bacteriophages-viruses that only attack certain strains of bacteria-to fight infection. Given the growing problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria, phages may very well be used as an alternative to antibiotics in the future.

This is a good thing, unless the virus mutates into some evil virus that kills all...

Oh really? With the ability to put things together atom by atom you don't think that humanity will ever reach this milestone?

Will it someday be possible? Sure. Will this day come before we manage to completely destroy the environment, blow ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust, die of a genetically-engineered plague, etc? Probably not.

Atom by atom engineering? I disagree. Regardless of how many Star Trek the next Generation episodes one watches, there is no Heisenberg Compensator

I am certainly not quick to be offended. This would be the first time ever i've been offended in these forrums and I have 200+ posts. What we believe is based

on testimony, not stupidity. I just said dont attack josh, and that's all... If you're not a Christian, you dont understand WHY I might get mad about that.

Try using a jelly doughnut for an example of allah in iraq.

When someone knows something is true, they know its true.

Ok, tdrefal. Does this mean that you are comparing your anger as it is justified by your own belief to the anger of a muslim as it is justified by his? Are you also admiting that both you and the muslim are equally certain about which faith is true, even though you both disagree? Where then does the real truth and justification for requiring people to believe in something one way or the other come from?

A muslim would have a right to be angry if you called allah jelly doughnut instead of simply witnessing, noone would expect otherwise. I do not believe, however, that the

muslim really knows exactly what he believes due to my study of Islam as a faith. The truth is they don't even know what they pray when they pray. I dont really think

the muslim is really "sure" like we are, no. My anger isn't the same thing as some muslim hatred (i certainly dont hate you or think you're the devil or whatever)... It stems

from an attack on a faithful brother in Christ and its very limited. It is not going to lead me to hate you or want to kill you or think you're an idiot. Those are the differences.

The real truth is based on the NT eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ.

And in case you didn't quite catch it, anger isnt hatred. What some of the muslims do is hatred, not anger. Being angry doesnt necessarily imply hatred.

I was sent a video through e-mail where a comedian made a good point.

The terrorists are told that if they die a martyr, they go to Heaven and get 72 virgins, and that is what they look forward to.

For those virgins. . . Heaven isn't quite what they expected, is it?

Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when

using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an

attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in

Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT

speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief.

You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU

RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said.

You are too quick to be offended.

First, I wasn't comparing the jelly doughnut to the christian God, I was comparing it to the lake of fire. Second, it wasn't used to insul, t any of you, it was to get your attention in following the logic. I wanted to go into more detail and build up to it, but since both of you are taking the comparison so harshly that you find it suiting to return premature insults at me then i'll explain on the point here and refur to the rest of Josh'd post when I get around to it.

Obviously, being afraid of a jelly doughnut is outlandish and it is not a truth I really claim to. Josh's point was that there was reason to believe and that reason was simply for the existence of belief itself or the fact that others are believing and that clues in life can guide you toward which nonprovable thing is the right thing to believe in. So i pointed out that in the extreme case of a Jelly doughnut that you don't see, it's clear that not only is it unlikely, but let's say that it turned out in the end to be true? If that were so then what morality is there to gauge from believing in it? For if it were the reality that God surounded or placed us in the center of a Jelly doughnut, or even so much as allowed this to be our fate due to some evil devil's actions, it would be a case of God mocking us. Therefore, why respect or care is such a God were real? If such a God were real then God wouldn't be taking us seriously or treating us fairly, and those of us with sound minds meant for logic would just wait, while enjoying life in other ways, till the time came when the jelly doughnut truth were revealed, and we'd have nothing left to worry about. We might all just laugh at Gods rediculousness.

I''m not saying that you wouldn't laugh too. I'm not even saying that this is what you blieve in. I'm only pointing out that it is as rationally logical as what you do believe in.

So let's say that doughnutism is far too outlandish for any God to expect us to believe in. Ok, then how about Paganism, witchcraft, egyptian pharoahs, greek gods, and tribal beliefs in small cultures that have not touched the benefits of industry yet. Are they also far too outlandish for our real god to expect us to believe in? Is it still the reasonability that makes a difference in christianity from these beliefs? OK, then what about Bhudism, hinduism, and islam? Are those beliefs also far too outlandish for a God to expect us to believe? can you still cling to christianity above these and accpet christianity as a fact, when these are also possibilities of what God might want us to believe in for our salvation? Fine, then what about Judeism? How can you know that God wants you to believe in christianity over judeism? How do you know that God isn't saying, "the jews are still my people and the christians are just gential people who blame all of my people over what a select few have done". My point wasn't to make a mockery of your religion, it was to point out that all of these religions have an unreasonable requirement of belief, which can by no means justify ones morality nor claim ones immorality. If anything, the only belief that is capable of causing one to act morally for having believed is one that is tested and questioned continuously to the bitter end, not one that is believed in as it's own justification.

So if you have no place in your religion to continuously question your beliefs, then I'm afraid that your faith means nothing more by any means than the faith of a doughnutist.

=

Thanks for your quote seanpont. It explains more clearly why I did have to use a jelly doughnut for an example, because if i put out another belief that people with reasonable minds believe in, it wouldnt have been noticed at all.

I am certainly not quick to be offended. This would be the first time ever i've been offended in these forrums and I have 200+ posts. What we believe is based

on testimony, not stupidity. I just said dont attack josh, and that's all... If you're not a Christian, you dont understand WHY I might get mad about that.

Try using a jelly doughnut for an example of allah in iraq.

When someone knows something is true, they know its true.

Wait a minute now... millinons of years ago and carbon-dated stones? hello?

c-14 dating doesn't go back millions of years as everyone knows. This is simply stupid. Any scientist would even say it's stupid. Noone would ever talk about

"carbon dated stones". Radiometric dated stones, perhaps, certainly not Carbon dated. Silliness.

My patience is wearing thin. I'm usually courteous but attacking josh-13 as though he is stupid strikes a nerve. I wonder just how young of an idealist

this guy is? Probably 12.

I don't understand how you think that I could be attacking him. I'm having an honest debate with him. What exactly have I said that comes off as attacking or offensive?

You can't be meaning that I'm attacking him just because I am questioning his beliefs can you? If you are suggesting that then it could just as easily be seen that he is attacking me for my logic. I don't claim that he's attacking me at all, but I can't make any other sense of what you would mean by this.

Also, Josh13, I spent a good hour responding to your last post and some fluke on the site occured. Then I lost it from going back too many times and copying the wrong thing. So I'll get back to it later, but the strain of having wasted that time is too frustrating for me to go back to it right away. I will respond to your argument soon though.

Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when

using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an

attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in

Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT

speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief.

You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU

RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said.

Thanks tdrehfal, I didn't take it as a direct attack on me though it was an attack, I just saw it as imaturity in mocking without taking time to understand, been there done that, that comment about God being a jelly donout, I've actualy said that before I knew the grace and the mercy of the Lord. It just reminded me of how blind I was, and further encouraged me because The Lord has directed me to know him.

Well josh, I aspire to be what you are. Perhaps you are just smarter than I am, I don't know... I am humbled by your response. Thank you. I don't likie my Brothers being

attacked, however, and Jesus did say it would be better for someone to have millstone tied around their neck than to offend one of these little ones that believes. I'm sorry

I get a little upset when someone who is even > me is attacked.

ah.. you just gotta love The Onion! It has given me many a chuckle!

Yes, it is pretty funny most of the time!

I would say here though that the author here refers to things as "my quotes" when they are simply not my quotes. And I'm certainly not trying

to "debunk science". That's just silly. The scientific method is sound. I simply say however that it does not conflict with Christianity in any way.

The Genesis 1 thing was totally deceptive. Genesis 1 begins with: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". SO? You added

the second verse to prove your point. It does not negate the first verse.

Dave-After you use a certain number of quotes, or after your post gets past a certain length, the quote tags stop working. It seems to be a quirk with the forum software.

Yeah... i CANT even respond to this.. the system is just too messed up for that

mods please help us

My patience is wearing thin. I'm usually courteous but attacking josh-13 as though he is stupid strikes a nerve. I wonder just how young of an idealist

this guy is? Probably 12.

I don't understand how you think that I could be attacking him. I'm having an honest debate with him. What exactly have I said that comes off as attacking or offensive?

You can't be meaning that I'm attacking him just because I am questioning his beliefs can you? If you are suggesting that then it could just as easily be seen that he is attacking me for my logic. I don't claim that he's attacking me at all, but I can't make any other sense of what you would mean by this.

Also, Josh13, I spent a good hour responding to your last post and some fluke on the site occured. Then I lost it from going back too many times and copying the wrong thing. So I'll get back to it later, but the strain of having wasted that time is too frustrating for me to go back to it right away. I will respond to your argument soon though.

Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when

using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an

attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in

Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT

speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief.

You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU

RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said.

Well, lets say that theres 2 paths, We are walking on a path that the end leads to a lake of fire, God gives us another path to walk on because he loves us, but he also gives us free will to walk that path, Thats not narcissism, And is beyond human logic.

If we don't see a firey lake, but a book or a fool tells us there is one, and that the only way to avoid the lake is to believe it's all around you and that you have a reason to fear it, then yes, it's beyond human logic to assume such a threat. The fact that it is beyond human logic is more reason to think that we are of no moral consequence to choose one way or another. It's the difference between gambling and not gambling. I don't have to gamble at all, because I can know the truth. The idea that god made such a lake and requires us to believe in him to get ourselves away from it is all the more proof that God is narcissistic, or just sick in the head. I could just as soon decide all of my choices with a coin toss. I'm not risking anything by knowing that God wouldn't care about which path we chose if such work was his own making. Expecting me to believe in something that I haven't enough reason to believe in is no different thanexpecting me to believe in a superstition. How do you deal with superstitions? If someone tells you that you'll be saved if you believe that they are God, is that the beyond human logic you are supposed to follow?

Now, we can drive in a car and have faith that a car is going to get us to where we're going, but that doesn't nessisarily mean we;re going to get there in that car, most the time it does, but the car can wreck. Now satan plans to make our faith like ordenary faith and lead us into a wreck, because if we don't have faith in God, then we look for other ways,

This sounds a lot more like you are separating ordinary logic from your own special logic. God faith vs Car faith. You aren't even arguing what makes them different, you're just assuming that the God of the bible can't let you down. Honestly, in this metaphor, is it a sin to wear a seat belt when you're riding in your god?

Now if we don't hold our faith in Jesus, then satan can throw other answers that are lies, to lead us away, and because our faith is in this world, we put our faith in that path to destruction again, so holding faith in God prevents us from sliding away from him.

And here we have the metaphysical differences that cause one to view another as being out of their mind. I say that God is a big jelly doughnut and if you don't believe it you will not be able to eat your waay out. Praying to St. Homer Simpson should help you to believe.

My patience is wearing thin. I'm usually courteous but attacking josh-13 as though he is stupid strikes a nerve. I wonder just how young of an idealist

this guy is? Probably 12.

There's so much wrong information here, it may take a while to refute it, but here goes, anyway...

scientists are slow to recognize the new scientific evidence that supports the Bible.

1. Maybe because there isn't any that has been peer-reviewed? Scientists will sit up and take notice the moment that some real science comes up with support for a biblical truth where that conflicts with existing science.

Most outdated information is still in the textbooks of students.

2. Indeed. when I was a lad, I had to read about valves, in spite of the fact that everyone was using those new-fangled transistors back then. However, in the biology field (I assume that this is what you are getting at), the theory of Evolution has only been strengthened with each new find. For example, the dinosaur-to-bird fossil gap only had Archaeopteryx, but now has some beautiful intermediates - dinosaurs with feathers, dinos with wishbones, birds with reptile teeth, etc. Every fossil find that bridges a gap in evolutionary evidence tightens up the theory.

Scientific evidence of God is now incresaing extremely rapidly. Gradual, the scientif world is becoming aware of the many breakthroughs.

3. So I should have seen some, then? Curious. I've not seen a single scientific paper implying any exisitence of a god of any sort. I have, for example, seen some scientific papers (available on the internet) that show evidence that geological strata could not have been laid down by a catastrophic flood, but which then bizarrely conclude that a flood was responsible. It just isn't in the realm of science to prove God.

Let me quote an article and maybe it will give a new perspective.

"The Bible... Scientific Insights...Investigation of the Evidence by Ralph O. Muncaster"

4. That'll be founder and Executive Director of the Institute of Contemporary Christian Faith, would it? Do you think that he might just be a tad biased? And maybe attempting to justify his position, and overlook evidence that inconveniently doesn't fit his agenda? Or that maybe his interpretation is just that, an interpretation, where the conclusion is already established in his mind before he started looking at the evidence?

In this small booklet, he also offers many other refrerences and sources that I just can't list them all.

This is but a small portion of what this booklet has to offer and if you like I will make a separate topic on it listing more facts.

5. Just list ONE 'fact' please. It will be the first fact that real science has encountered, so we can view it as a breakthrough.

Why Science Seems At Odds:

The more the Bible is studied, the more suprising it becomes that people often thin it is in contradiction with science.

6. Not really. If science says that the universe is 13 billion years old, and the bible says 6,000 years, it doesn't seem at all surprising that most people find the two in contradiction.

Yet the idea of scientific rejection has been popular only the last hundred years. Great scientists of the past including Newton, Kepler and Galieo were all avid readers and believers of the Bible.

7. Yes, indeed. Galileo had so much trouble with the church that he probably would have been executed if he hadn't appeared to believe it. It seems that not much has changed in 500 years, sometimes - science vs the Bible Newton wasted most of his time with Alchemy, too, and he was way off line there.

As scientists are slow become aware of the increidible wealth of recent information, a scientif return to the Bible is occurring.

8. The crucial word there is 'incredible' - Strict meaning: 'Unbelievable'. Spot on.

In 1916 Einstein's General Relativity breakthrough contained ample evidence to refute evolution with pure mathematical probability.

9. Your ignorance here is simply staggering. Were you educated at all in science? Where is the relevance of the General Theory of Relativity to evolution? It doesn't touch it. Do you even know how DNA is copied? Do you know the difference between the Special and General Theories of Relativity?

So, see Darwin's Theory is just that, theory. Not fact. Here are a couple of facts though.

Anyone knowledgeable in probability theory and also knowledgeable about the Bible, should understand the supernatural inspiration of the Bible.

Consider:

1. That information in the Bible could NOT have been contrived after scientific knowledge became available. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint-both written hundreds of years BC - exist as evidence.

10. I'm very knowledgeable about probability theory, but fail to see what that has to do with the bible.

2. That the books of the Bible were written by at least 40 authors over 1500 years, yet have consisten integrated information tying them all togeher.

This analysis says different, and that's the very first chapter that's already inconsistent.

Scientific insights are in the Bible that were not known by Science until many centuries later. Man's belief at the time contradicted it. The probability of such insights without God is beyond reason.

11. I can't think of one. Please name just one.

Concealed Codes show incredible, complex models integrating books by different authors in different locations and at different times statistically impossible numerical patternsals emerge with the assistance of high speed computers.

12. This story has been around since the early sixties, but I've never found a source for it, or the methodology used. I've asked several times for the source of this info, yet nobody can provide me with it. Can you quote the original, please?

Even if Moses somehow knew the 10 event creation process merely guessing the correct order would be unlikely (one chance in about 4 billion). Recent discoveries show that life and the existence of earth are statistically impossible without God.

13. Where in the bible does it posit a 10-event creation? I can only see Genesis, which gets it the wrong way around (Plants before the Sun).

Please, if you want to believe in the bible, then do so on the basis of faith. Science is not involved. Leave science out of it.

Regards

Dave

1. Appeal to "I've read every peer-reviewed article that ever existed". I bet you did.

2. Attempting to confuse historical information with outdated information. Didn't buy it. Then makes baseless claims without sources about intermediates.

Where's the link to the peer-reviewed article about the intermediate. And I want that thing radiometrically dated too.

3. Admits that a flood was responsible but could not be responsible at the same time? Nice.

4. Appeal to bias. Too bad every human is biased to some degree. Nice try though.

5. Appeal to "if it's not my view or the view of my peers, it's not real science!"

6. Appeal to non-existant verses of the bible that tell us exactly how old the earth is.

7. Appeal to sympathy for some scientist that got hassed by Christians in the past. We do not argue from sympathy or empathy.

8. Appeal to wordgames.

9. Appeal to "You're ignorant". Admits that relativity has nothing to do with the subject matter, and then asks questions about relativity!

10. Appeal to false knowledge. I'm sure you're really a probability theorist. And you wouldn't attempt to APPLY it to the Bible., so this is

also "Appeal to a scientific experiment that I will never conduct, because God can't exist, because well, he just can't!"

11. Appeal to ignorance of the facts. The Bible says the heavens were stretched out. Why on earth would any man come up with that? Oh wait

Big Bang, stretching of space, hello?

12. Appeal to "Christians have some urban legends, therefore they are all stupid" Yeah, well, everyone has some urban legends.

13. Appeal to wordgames and well, just not reading Genesis.

And by the way, plants don't need "The sun". We have indoor plant lights that can make plants grow. The Bible says there was LIGHT. LIGHT would be fine.

I guess thats what it's photosynthesis and not sun-synthesis.