Creationism vs. ☐

12:34 AM

@fredsbend : There is no verse in the Bible in which you can directly insert the word catholic & other verses that point to the opposite of "universal". Again, its not in the Bible. Besides that the Catholic church has ruined any sense of validity b/c of their teaching & practices, most of which isn't Biblical. Also, the Trinity isn't Biblical nor is the word in the Bible. I have done extensive study on these things. The timing of the Gospels relative to Corinthians or Revelation, etc.

user9712

12:44 AM

doesn't matter. Why? God lives outside of time. Yesterday, today & tomorrow happen all at once for Him. Moreover, its what is written within their pages that is the important issue. Like I wrote in a previous post God ousmarted man. He used an unchangeable system in redundancy so that even if someone uses a wrong word here or there the truth is preserved. Do you trust God? I do, especially once He revealed His system to me. Its 1 of the reasons the parables are so important.

Word for word versions adhere to the all important sentence structure better than other versions. So called scholars & theologians have been arguing over words & concepts for centuries & in many cases its up in the air, inconclusive at best in many cases. We could keep going round & round for 2000 more years or we could ask Jesus to show us how to understand what the Bible is telling us, by use of His unchangeable system that forever binds the truth that stands forever unchanged to OT & NT.

Hebrews is a genuine Bible book no matter any claim to the contrary. Since Jesus came fulfilling & ending the OT covenant, under the NT covenant our Sabbeth is now in Heaven not on earth. My point regarding the availablity of the Bible was with regard to the fact that instead of making it illegal for commoners to own 1 they should have spent some of their huge amounts of money to provide Bibles to the poor & taught them to read. Jesus wants everyone who wants to know to read His word.

user9712

1:14 AM

The Bible was never for priests only. Furthermore, many of the Catholic hierarchy have shown by many of their actions & claims that they were into power & controlling the masses that they thought they could do whatever they wanted including adding in many things that are blatantly false, a bald faced lie. Even their very format that all Catholic teaching rests upon is false & has been since the Cc's commencement. Its very sad that they did these things which has mislead many for centuries.

fredsbend

@user9712 You reject the Trinity then? That's fine. At least that is consistent with what you have been saying.

@user9712 To save me the effort of responding, there is quite a few people on this forum who know what they are talking about. You can read what they are saying; it's pretty close to what I would say.

> The Bible was never for priests only.

This doesn't make sense with the way you are trying to use that for your argument. Getting a book at all was nearly impossible until 1400's with the advent of the

Printing press

A printing press is a device for evenly printing ink onto a print medium (substrate) such as paper or cloth. The device applies pressure to a print medium that rests on an inked surface made of movable type, thereby transferring the ink. Typically used for texts, the invention and spread of the printing press are widely regarded as among the most influential events in the second millennium revolutionizing the way people conceive and describe the world they live in, and ushering in the period of modernity. The world's first movable type printing technology was invented and developed i...

The Bible wasn't banned. It doesn't even make sense to say that. Getting a book at all was difficult in the first place because it was very difficult to make one.

user9712

It isn't the God or His Bible thats at fault. It is the fault of many men who did not rightly seek to know God through Jesus & they did not make sure they rightly understood God"s & Jesus' instructions for rightly know Him & how & what to teahc to others. Having studied the whole Bible, I can say with absolute certainty that the Trinity doctrine is in error & is therefore false. Even in recent history Cc only priests were allowed to interpret Scripture, especially the OT.

fredsbend

@user9712 You can't just brush off a flaw in your logic because of a characteristic that you think God holds. That doesn't even make sense. We live here in this world. What happens here and our explanations for it need to make sense with reality. With your logic here, we can push off anything as not a real issue.

@user9712 What about the ten commandments? Are those to be observed? I asked about the Sabbath because it is part of the commandments and most Protestants answer the question as yes, but when you get to that one they simply redefine Sabbath to whatever they want. Something you seem to be doing with "Sabbath in heaven" comment.

Remember, the command to keep the Sabbath is right next to avoiding idolatry, murder, adultery, theft, lying, et al.

user9712

Regardless, of what some say, the Cc wasn't making any great effort to make sure its followers got to read the Bible for themselves & that went on for centuries. I also know that it was illegal to own a Bible for estended periods of time over several centuries.

fredsbend

Also, remember that the ten commandments likely were known and even given to Adam. This is especially well supported for the Sabbath. They predate the Law of Moses.

@user9712 That is a blanket statement that is misleading. It was illegal to own unapproved translations, which was a legitimate concern. Uneducated people who happened to know a little of the Latin were trying to translate the Scripture, and doing a horrible job at it!

Nelson

1:33 AM

@fredsbend user9712 is right on everything that he says because he has studied the Bible for 40 years:)

There is no point in debating him because he is always right.

user9712

Like I said God is the smartest of all. In the Bible He made sure that no matter what man does His word is preserved forever. If you know God for real you don't push off the things that actually matter to God, the things He said are true are true forever. The 10 Commandments are the backbone & the Guideline for everything said by Jesus for the NT covenant. How the 10 Commandments are applied is controlled by what Jesus did & said & by what is explained in the NT by the Apostles.

Nelson

@user9712 You are absolutely right that His word has been preserved forever however the proper interpretation of many of His words was lost long ago. And your interpretations are just as faulty as the rest.

user9712

There were lots of people punished & killed over Bible ownership, translation & interpretation, usually controlled by what the Cc dictated. To a point it might have been helpful if the Cc was actually teaching & following what the Bible actually says instead of things they made up along the way. Despite the language of followers, for centuries mass was held in latin not native languages. Again, the Vatican, thrones, mass & many other things done by the Cc are not Biblical under the NT covenant.

Like I said 1 of the biggest problens is that people do not carefully read the Bible. Again, God outsmarted us. Only the Bible can't be properly known nor understood w/o going to Jesus (Jn14:6; 539; 2Cor3:14; Is 29:11-12. ~Even Jewish people can't unveil OT w/o Jesus =all gentiles can't =its why many interpretations exist or its called fiction). Who knows more about a house, the Builder or people movong in later?

@Nelson : It is obvious to me that you do not know how to trust God nor have you understood what God & Jesus said in the Bible or you would never make such statements. Again, I tell you, go back & carefully study everything I posted in your forums. The BoM is nothing more than a non-existent history & poorly rewritten Bible passages that keep repeating & emphasis of things already properly contained in the Bible, with a lot of nonsense thrown in to make it seem like some fantastic new thing,

which it is not. Many of the things claimed a something amazing was already common knowledge that is in the Bible or came from someone else who was also misinterpreting what is already in the Bible. Some parts of the BoM are written in such a way, its as if they laid open the Bible next to what they were writing & just took parts of the Bible & transfered it to the BoM along with their slant to make the BoM seem like something incredibly supernatural, which its not.

By knowing what the Bible actually says, its obvious that the BoM doesn't adhere to the same foundation, format, structure & word usage as the Bible, meaning it can't be from God. This is b/c God & Jesus never change, including the objects used, the sentence structure used & very manner in which they speak. Sadly, the BoM is the biggest lie ever told, regarding God & His Scripture.

Nelson

2:16 AM

@user9712 You have made all of those claims before but have never once given any evidence in support of your statements.

What Biblical doctrines does the Book of Mormon contradict?

Surly with the claims you just made it should be easy to find something.

user9712

I'm not going to go back through what I already wrote on your other forums. The things I listed before prove the BoM isn't from God. Even if all your so-called doctrines were correct (I did point to some error already) the underlying claims shift all your claims to being false. You can't teach the truth & what is blatantly false at the same time. Go & learn what this means.

Anonymous

This conversation has nothing to do with Creationism at all.

Actually, it is starting to look like an anti-Mormon rant.

Nelson

Sure it is. User9712 is creating facts out of thin air:)

@user9712 You have never responded to my direct questions regarding the Book of Mormon

Anonymous

In any case, Mormonism has its own problems. As a religious skeptic, I find Mormonism even harder to believe than Christianity.

user9712

@Anonymous : The problem is I already answered him regarding his accusations against me on his forums. Now he is coming over here b/c I wasn't going to keep rehashing my points & going round & round with him over there. Its sad really.

Anonymous

2:32 AM

@user9712 OK. Give it up already. :)

svidgen

2:42 AM

This is getting a little absurd. Even for a room about a topic that no one will ever budge on in an internet "debate."

user9712

@fredsbend : Now back to Creationism. Its sad that YEC can't see that even the Bible gives very strong hints that the universe & things on earth were not created in 7 24 hour days. 24 hour days weren't even created until the 4th day of Creation & for sure God did not rest from Creation for only 24 hours. Ham may mean well but I think its a great waste of time, energy & money building all that stuff even if YEC was right but sadly its worse b/c it ain't so! The Bible account is true.

svidgen

I don't necessarily doubt you, but which part of the Bible says the creation story is not literal history?

"Doubt" => "disagree" ... I don't disagree. But I'm curious as to how you make that conclusion from ... um... Whatever your interpretive method is.

user9712

It is the readers who can't seem to get what the actual account is. However, black is wrong. The Bible's Creation account is true. It just needs to be properly understood.

svidgen

Easy enough to say...

Why doesn't that statement work against your understanding? Why is it more valid for you to say your understanding is proper and ... Saint Augustine's isn't? Or the Pope's? Any Pope's. Or Anyone other than you.

Or a YEC's?

Like @David

user9712

@svidgen : The Creation story is literally true. Many just don't understand what they are reading so they default to what they think or have been told is true. 1 part is my study regarding the claimed Evolution theory. Its a false theory. Read my posts above regarding Evolution. Another, comes from studying the whole Bible, parts many time for over 45 yrs & seeing how it all goes together, all woven together like a seamless garment & having the true building blocks for right interpretation

Amaterasu

2:59 AM

I have read the Bible, attended classes, learned Science, researched Science and find that the evidence points towards Evolution theory - and can not be convinced otherwise

user9712

present right in front of our noses, not able to be seen w/o God & Jesus to show us His directions (skipped by many). Thats what drew me to do a very intense study of the Bible for so many years.

svidgen

@user9712 "I know this shit" is not a valid argument. Even if you're right. It's pointless thing to say. It doesn't provide evidence of anything but your ego. ... I hope you see that ...

user9712

@svidgen : It all came down to this: I was around many religious people. Most of them, having different interpretations, said the Bible was God's book. I thought to myself, "How can this be?" How can so many different claims be made from 1 book? So I set out to find out for myself -what does the Bible actually say? Can we all be right? Common sense. Thats an impossibilty. If God exists then He must have given instructions as to how to rightly understand what He wrote & He did.

svidgen

@user9712 ... Go on.

And if you can, skip the personal narrative and just tell us where God wrote down the instructions for interpreting the Bible. ... And which publication of it He prefers.

user9712

3:15 AM

@Amaterasu : 1 of the major problems is what approach you take & where you start. I realized that people have for centuries studied the Bible as if it were an academic exersize but in many cases were no further along than those who did it centuries ago. Its also very easy to get caught up in things someone has told you coming from those who came before us & to keep building on what they have done. I thought, what if they are wrong in some way? What if they missed something important. If God

Amaterasu

@user9712 your assumption about how I learned the Bible and Science are incorrect

user9712

"might" exist then maybe its more important to 1st find out if He indeed does exist. Since Jesus said He came from God I decided that it should be most important that I start with Him & what is said about Him in the Bible, the only place extensive writing about Him exists.

Amaterasu

<--Atheist

used to be Christian

the more I read and observed, the less I was convinced of God's existence

Nelson

Why does it matter how long it took God to create the earth. To someone who believes in God and understands to some degree His power, it would not be out of His scope to create the earth in 6 days. He can do anything because he is God. However the theories of science can also fit into Gods creation of the earth.

It is not beyond the scope of what is written in the Bible to see the days as periods of time that the Lord used to set in motion the laws of science to do their thing. Much evolution is based on unproven theories. Godly things such as the creation of the earth require a great deal faith which can not be proven either. I don't think it does anybody any good to take such a hard stance in defence of their side when both sides have very little physical evidence to support their claims.

user9712

@Amaterasu : I'm not trying to convince you for the sake of covincing anyone. However, in my 1st post on this site I provide a list of my research points as to why I believe Ev isn't true. So if you are intereseted please go there and read them.

Amaterasu

3:23 AM

@Nelson - that I can accept

@user9712 As a scientist, I am not 100% convinced of Evolution theory as it currently stands either

@Nelson and that right there is the key to the way my mind and belief system works - evidence

Nelson

As an atheist and a scientist you can not accept the literal 6 day creation. If you believed in God do you think He could have done it in 6 days?

Amaterasu

@Nelson nope, hen I was a Christian, I could not accept it then either - for the reasons you stated - rather than 'days', 'periods of time'

Nelson

I believe he still could have done it in 6 literal days even though the physical evidence does not support that claim. He is God so He could do anything. However it is a lot more easier for me to see those days as periods of time, which then is not in any conflict with science.

user9712

@Amaterasu : Actually, God could have done it all in a nano-2nd if He wanted to. But the Bible, when read correctly, is stating that it was done in 6 periods of time that could be 6 seconds to zillions of years at God's choosing. This means the Bible doesn't give us earth's age. Thats not the most important issue anyway.

Amaterasu

One thing you have to realise is that as an Atheist, I do not believe in 'God' - I believe in the evidence that can be measured, observed and scrutinized

so to me, yes forces of nature could cause tremendous events in a nanosecond, but as Nelson said - there is little physical evidence of either claim

and note, before I said 'I can not accept' rather than saying 'it is wrong' - I never really say that, due to the lack of evidence

Nelson

3:43 AM

Even with your atheist beliefs you can not say with 100% certainty that the earth was created in a big bang, just like you can not also say with 100% certainty that God does not exist either.

Amaterasu

i said i do not believe that God exists, nor do I necessarily believe that the Earth and universe began with a Big Bang - I never said that I did

Nelson

But what evidence do you have that he does not exist?

Amaterasu

I do not have much evidence to suggest that he does exist

i will say this now, I can not be converted

I have to go, but I will leave this statement about what I believe - the evidence suggests that nothing that we 'know' is 100% certain - I am as skeptical about the existence of God as I am about the Big Bang, as personally, I have not seen much evidence for either (there are many more examples of course)

i also respect other peoples' belief and have no intention, ever, of trying to convince them otherwise.

Nelson

I am not trying to convert. You are right that there is a lack of physical evidence on both sides. However their is more evidence that he does exist than that he doesn't. The possibilities are still there. People have claimed to have seen him in the past and their are many perceived miracles that have happened through history that could have happened by chance but 1 in a billion are not very good odds.

I respect your opinion as well.

Amaterasu

it depends how one interprets this evidence - humans are biased creatures alot of the time

Thank you all though, I have enjoyed this chat! A nice civilised exploration of ideas ( the way it always should be).

better go, gotta set up an experiment involving too many lasers

Nelson

3:58 AM

@Amaterasu I agree with that. The main point is that there is some evidence of Gods existence but it can never be proven that he does not exist. Just like you said "I am skeptical about the existence of God" There is a lot of doubt, but you still have some faith for the possibly that God exists:)

user9712

4:13 AM

@svidgen : 1s approach, attitude & methodology makes all the difference for whether we actually find God & Jesus or not. God doesn't like arrogant & contentious people. They are usually too into whatever they happen to be into to teach what He wants to teach to us. To start almost any standard Bible will do. Yes, there are a few exceptions that will make it harder or perhaps give the wrong impression if you decide to make them your choice, such as the KJV, Darby, NIV or Message Bible.

I find that the English Standard Version (ESV) is one of the best, yet easiest to read today. If you are serious start with reading John 3 in the NT. Then I will point out things here if you want me to.

Nelson

@user9712 "God doesn't like arrogant & contentious people"??? You seem to be just that so how can you rightly interpret His word? Pretty sure He loves everyone, including you.

svidgen

5:38 AM

@user9712 There are people God doesn't like? Doesn't that make your God a hypocrite? Or am I interpreting the command to live my enemies incorrectly?

Love*

Anyway, what's your purpose in arguing with folks here? And. Forgive me for being dense, but what exactly is it that you're arguing? It seems to me your purpose here is to hate on the CC and Mormons whilst making it clear that you're awesome at interpreting scripture.

Hopefully I'm mistaken.

user9712

@svidgen : God makes the rules not me. He is not sending some people to Hell b/c He loves them. He would have loved to take them to Heaven but many aren't choosing to know Him, His way nor do they want to be subject to His rules. He sets His boundaries but many try to move them to where they want them. We can't win Him over by making up our own rules.

God loves whom He wants to. Since He made us He has all authority to draw His line anywhere He wants but He does spell out where His boundaries are in the Bible. Loving your enemies preceeds with telling them the truth. Its then up to them whether they want to listen or not. Those that think God loves everyone just the way they are do not read nor understand the word of God. You may come to Him as you are but you can't stay that way. Imagine allowing your child to do whatever they want to

svidgen

@user9712 I don't think any of the Christians here would dispute that God makes the rules. the question is, why should we assume you're more familiar with those rules than our own pastors and priests and mystics and saints who have ask devoted as much, if not more time to learning scripture and loving Christ?

And to follow that point of curiosity, as I already asked, what's your point here?

... And before you answer, it would be swell if you prayed for us. For me. Your prayers will be more valuable than your words to me.

Nelson

5:56 AM

He has been studying the Bible for 40 years, that's why he knows so much more than us.

His understanding of the Bible is perfect and needs no correction from anybody.

fredsbend

6:16 AM

@Amaterasu I'm currently at a stage where I think I might begin calling myself agnostic (for similar reasons as you call yourself Atheist, probably). And this is coming from a guy who claimed YEC only 6 months ago.

@Amaterasu Well, then skeptic is probably a better term for you, which is closer to agnostic than atheist, imo. But many in your position identify with people like Hitchens and Dawkins who claim Atheism.

You simply can't prove the non-existence of something. Which is where you sit, right? You see a lack of evidence, therefore, you choose to remain skeptical. However, some evidence may still exist out there. We just don't know.

Nelson

@fredsbend The creation does not need to be interpreted as 6 literal days. Could God in all His power have created it in 6 days and made it appear as a billion years old? Yes. But it is much easier to see the creation of the earth in periods of time.

fredsbend

@Amaterasu Dynamite with a laser beam.

What kind of work do you do that requires experiments with lasers?

Nelson

In that there is no contradiction with science. Both the big bang and intelligent design lack physical proof. Even a concept like the big bang could prove in a later time how God did in fact create the universe.

Bruce Alderman

6:43 AM

@Nelson "Much evolution is based on unproven theories."--The core theory underlying evolution is natural selection, and you can only call that an unproven theory in the academic sense that no scientific theory is ever proven. The evidence for natural selection is about as solid as anything in the sciences.

Nelson

6:54 AM

@BruceAlderman Natural selection is not the same as a full evolution belief, from one cell to a human. Animals change naturally over time and their is evidence of that. It is more plausible to think that we came from God as opposed to that we evolved from mud that was struck by lightning.

Sure I it hard to see the physical evidence of God but there is evidence of Him.

Bruce Alderman

@Nelson I don't see why those two have to be mutually exclusive. Could God not have caused life to form from "mud that was struck by lightning"?

And anyway, the origin of life is outside the scope of evolution. Evolution only explains the diversity of life, not that fact that life exists in the first place.

Nelson

I 100% agree with your assumption. He very well could have done it that way and I think he probably did.

Historical records of people actually seeing him and accounts of miracles happening that are undeniably supernatural. Those provide as more evidence to the reality of God than does the various theories of scientific creation/evolution.

user9712

1 how ever & wherever they want to. I wil pray for you & others. As for who to believe, I don't ask you to assume anything concerning my statements. Today, more than ever, we are bombbarded all day with adds about this is good for you, this 1s better, buy this or buy that. The same is true regarding religion. One main reason I did my research is b/c with so many different beliefs & people stating something is right, many saying no something else is right or others saying they're both wrong,

Nelson

@BruceAlderman I was under the impression that you were an atheist.

El'endia Starman

Just finished reading a lengthy refutation of 30 young-Earth arguments (specifically by Dr. Hovind). Here it is: part 1 and part 2. I especially like how many of the refutations include evidence that support an old Earth.

3

Nelson

7:06 AM

@user9712 With you saying that your interpretations are 100% correct all of the time you are in affect joining the group of people bombarding people with information that could very well be correct but in reality you could be just as wrong as the rest of us.

Bruce Alderman

@Nelson I might come across that way to some people in this chat room. I'm a theistic evolutionist, which as I define it means God created everything through natural processes that can be understood through reason, and don't require special revelation. But God's relationship with the individual can never be understood through science.

Nelson

I see things that way as well.

Bruce Alderman

@user9712 Why do you continue to act as though you're the only one here who has studied this?

user9712

go this way & on & on.1 day I thought if there is a God I want to know who He is. I didn't want to waste time going back & forth through things that I couldn't be sure whether they were right or wrong. I wanted to be sure once & for all that I was pursuing the truth if it actually existed. One day, I ran into Jesus, through the Bible & my research wasn't in vain after all so now I try to tell people what I know. Its still up to them if they want to believe me or not. Supposedly, some people are

genuinely searching for the truth. I found where it is & how to find it. So should I pretend I don't know? I don't think that is what Jesus wants me to do & that is stated in the Bible. Why would I want to hide the map to Heaven when that is the most important map one can possess.

Nelson

@user9712 We all have a map to heaven though. Which one of our maps is correct or does it really matter because they all end up in the same place after all. Your assertion that your map is the one and only 100% correct map all of the time does nothing but piss people off and they end up calling you crazy.

Nobody can know what truth is unless they have a full comprehension and relationship with the spirit of the lord or a prophet reveals it to them. The Bible gets you as close as mans mind can comprehend but that is often not far enough for a full understanding.

user9712

7:20 AM

@BruceAlderman : In my 1st posts I wrote regarding my research on Ev. & give 9 points for why Ev isn't true. If you get some time read them & let me know what you think. I would be interested in knowing your take on what I wrote.

Bruce Alderman

@user9712 I'll take a look. I may have to bookmark it and come back later, as it's about 1:25 am here.

user9712

@fredsbend : Thats what I'm trying to tell you evidence does exist but you have to be determined to find it & pursue doing that if you really want to know. Again, we can know & I'm telling you that I found it in the Bible where it has always been. Again, the problem is that many just don't take the time to make sure they actually understand what is written there.

Bruce Alderman

7:40 AM

@user9712 OK, I'm not sure why you think bilateral symmetry argues against evolution. We have genes that give us certain features, and genes that turn on other genes so those features can be expressed, and genes that keep the other genes in sync. To suggest that our genetics can't produce bilateral symmetry is simply to argue from personal ignorance. Building a body is not like building a house.

user9712

@svidgen : The point is either a real truth exists or we are all wasting our time arguing over things that are never going to go anywhere. We should just go play baseball or golf or with the kids, etc. If there is no real truth then what would we gain? Part of the way to find the truth is by process of elimination. That means that we have to become critical thinkers regarding all religious matters, including Catholic, LDS, JWs, Moonies, Islam & whatever other religions are around us.

Bruce Alderman

@user9712 And again, I don't see why you think instinctual behaviors argue against evolution. Many experiments have shown that instinctual behavior can be encoded in our genetics. Here's one example.

user9712

They can't all be right. Since the Bible is claimed as the basis for many of these beliefs I wnnt to the Bible to measure their beliefs against what is written there. All I'm doing is relaying my findings. Again, its up to you & others if they want to do anything with it or not. To even go toward the truth you must eliminate what is not true. Otherwise, you are just keeping things convoluted & confusing perhaps even yourself. I don't want to be 1 of them. Hopefully none of us want to.

Bruce Alderman

7:55 AM

@user9712 "millions more misfits with mistakes, having only 1 or 3 eyes in odd places, 1 leg growing out of a head, where a fin, arm, wing should be, etc. would exist instead of the perfection we observe in nature."

Really?? You think we never see "misfits with mistakes" like a leg growing out of a head or a three-eyed fish?

Bruce Alderman

8:06 AM

@user9712 Regarding "trial and error phyla", are you familiar with the Burgess Shale specimens?

@user9712 I don't see what this thought experiment is supposed to prove. If you're trying to say you can't imagine how organisms could have evolved through changes in DNA, you're back to arguing from personal ignorance. And again you refer to "the perfection we find in nature", but in reality nature falls far short of perfection.

I'll try to answer your other points later, but so far I'm not impressed.

user9712

@BruceAlderman : Where do think genes got all the info needed to do the 1000s of things that are done through genes? I was once hired to design & build a couple of machines. It takes a lot of work to design & build even a relatively simple machine. Its too simple to say that genes have incorporated code that can do all these things w/o awareness, understanding of what, how & why things are & work in a certain way. Intelligence is a necessary component.

TorbenC

8:21 AM

lol

/me whistles

This chat is funny.

What is up with the square in the title?

Also, I don't see the argument really, evolution has been proven.

Even a lot of Christians agree to this

Of course there are round about ways that they say God created the first beings or w/e they are on about now.

Anywho

Funny chat

user9712

8:39 AM

To make an organism requires awareness of the purpose for it & the ability to line up everything so that it can function properly. Just to make computer code for a program to work takes a huge amount of knowledge regarding all the functions with respect to the purpose of your program. W/o intelligence you would never succeed at making a program. DNA & its related processes takes knowledge

of its purpose & all its related functions. In higher life-forms, the various extreme complexity in the needed code would require 1 to have a huge amount of intelligence, knowledge & understanding of all the required systems & have the ability to know how to put them in the right places so that they can properly work together so that the organism can function. As I said in 1 of my points, imagine being boxed in a tiny cell smaller than a text period, having near zero intelligence,

only being able to sense very little in a very limitted area around you, inventing millions of very diverse species (none of them ever existed before). Do you understand what an impossible feat that would be? If you have no awareness & required intelligence to even know what that is, no ability to know what knowledge even is & what to do with it you can't put 1000s to millions of cells together, their functions & how they work you're never going to understand how to assemble them so they can

user9712

9:08 AM

all work & properly function together. Yes, we do see a rare "misfit" now & then. Most mutations are bad. A good mutation is rare & its even more rare that they ever have permanence in sucessive generations. The point being that the near perfect functionality of organisms we find in nature is too perfect to happen by chance w/o intelligence being present. The amount of near perfect organisms found in nature as opposed to misfits is too perfect for random chance, NS, survival of the fittest,

user9712

9:48 AM

genetic drift, etc. to produce such perfection w/o a huge amount of trial & error attempts along the way that should be visable in the Fossil Record. The Laws of Probability must be severely violated for such perfection to occur on its own. Further, everything Ev is mostly speculation as we did not see it happen & it cannot be duplicated. W/o uncut film starting from the beginning of life to today we can never prove Ev is fact. What actually happened can never be proved. Even if we could cause 1

user9712

10:15 AM

body type species to change to another it would only prove that it took an extrodinary amount of intelligence, knowledge, time & energy to cause it to happen. Anything beyond that will always be just speculation as we can never see what actually happened whern it happened. There is huge difference between failure of a machine in its operation & failure with regard to the design & execution of the design for creation of an organism. In the Fossil Record we find each animal type in near perfect

user9712

11:05 AM

form (the full design already present) with only a very few anomalies (very rare), almost all do not survive & rarer still get passed on to the next generation or beyond (each separate body type design must already exist for any adaptation to occur -a permanent barrier exists btwn each type). Adaptation changes within a species body type remains within that species body type even if the change doesn't allow crossbreeding to take place btwn the original & 1 that has adaptation changes. If Ev

ever occurred it would have been so slow that the universe has not existed long enough for many millions of extremely diverse species to have been created even if you could add many billions of yrs beyond the beginning of the universe. The odds are so great against it ever happening you would have a better chance of winning the highest stake lottery every day for your entire life. In other words it did not happen. 2 lungs, kidneys, ears, etc. (they're not copies) proves it couldn't happen.

You must know all about 1 lung in order to make a mirror image lung. I built houses & I am fully knowledgable that I could not make a mirror image house unless I fully know everything about the 1st house. It can't be done w/o lots of intelligence, full knowledge of the 1st house & all that is required to accomplish designing & building it. The same is true for designing & creating organisms. And, the Designer & Creator of life would have to be more intelligent than any life that was created.

fredsbend

2:52 PM

@BruceAlderman Yeah, I said the same thing, just different.

@El'endiaStarman I used to be a Hovind fan until recently. I went on YouTube and saw a few of his things and said "That's not exactly right. He's not portraying that correctly." I decided he's either a liar or just stupid.

@BruceAlderman I always go to dogs for this. I had a heeler and we lived on a farm. Without any coaxing, her first day we let her outside she ran to the horses immediately and tried to get them moving. She did that everyday for 10 years straight. She then lived another 7 years wishing she could still do it.

@BruceAlderman Yes, the natural world is actually quite messy. A primary reason I'm loosing faith today. I can't overcome the problem of evil, decay, and suffering. An omnipotent god who cares about us really has no excuse to let such things continue.

@TorbenC I think that is the default character for an unknown utf code, or something like that. I think it is a geek joke. Whoever created the room (like three years ago)..

7 hours ago, by Bruce Alderman

I'll try to answer your other points later, but so far I'm not impressed.

@user9712 Yes, there's just quite a few things that make me think you don't quite understand what you are talking about. I didn't want to just blatantly say it like Bruce has, though.

fredsbend

3:15 PM

@user9712 That's just the thing here! They're not mirror images. They're close enough to say that in practicality, but in reality, functionally, and under micro scale, we see that they are only close. This should be obvious just from looking at your own hands; there are subtle differences. Further, our guts are largely asymmetrical! Liver, heart, pancreas, stomach, intestines, spleen, heart, etc.

Remember I was saying that cells are just macro-chemical reactions. The body is just a macro collection of cells. This article shows that Chemistry is responsible for putting certain organs where they belong. Specifically, the asymmetrical organs.

> Nodal expression on the left side in mammals and chicks is a key event, and is due to the release of calcium on the left possibly involving an ion pump and the Notch pathway.

How do you think we have growth prediction models for in utero infants? That is based off what we know about typical biochemistry. It is predictable. We can have a good guess at what will happen because of what we know about Chemistry.

There is no intelligence implied at all. This is like the biggest straw man I have ever seen.

svidgen

4:13 PM

@fredsbend the "problem of evil" is definitely tough for Philosophers. But,remember that the Christian God is a suffering God. It doesn't necessarily eliminate the philosophical question, but it demonstrates God's answer, I think. Even if we don't fully understand it.

In fact, the book of revelation suggests that all of scripture and ask of history can only be understood properly through the lens of Christ crucified, the suffering God.

That should read All of history ... auto correct.

fredsbend

8:43 PM

@svidgen Here's the problem. I see these two things as fundamentally, mutually exclusive: 1) God is omnipotent and 2) God loves everyone. If we assume one, then we have to question why god takes such little action in the world and should conclude that he does not posses the other.

Nelson

9:36 PM

@svidgen What part of Wisconsin are you from?

fredsbend

10:59 PM

We would say: "If God is omnipotent and loves us all, then why do we suffer? God must only be omnipotent and not love us (all of us anyway); he simply doesn't care enough to change the world. Or, God must only love us and is not omnipotent; he wants to change the world, but He is actually incapable."

[Lost internet for a while, lol]

svidgen

@fredsbend sure. On the surface, it's an unsolvable problem. Theologians, saints, popes, and the lay throughout the ages have wrestled with the "problem" of evil. Judaism acknowledges it as a mystery only God can answer. Christ takes a step toward answering it by suffering and dying. His suffering and death don't necessarily tell us why evil is allowed. Or why suffering is allowed. But He shares it with us.

He simultaneously proves His love and His power, giving us eternal life by His own suffering.

@Nelson Madison

That's where I am now, I mean. If that's what you mean.

fredsbend

11:22 PM

@svidgen It is most definitely an antinomy, and one that I cannot just accept. I can believe that God is omnipotent (at least from our perspective), but I'm no longer convinced that the Christian God loves everybody, or even anyone at all. My theology is surely shaken, and as a result, my entire faith.

svidgen

11:37 PM

@fredsbend that's unfortunate. ... It might be worth considering whether we have broken understanding of evil. Or at least a broken understanding of suffering. ... We clearly have a broken understanding of good.

Perhaps if we better understand good we see that it's actually evil not to permit evil.

Permitting it may truly be the most loving course of action.

I can't pretend to know. I'm a touch shocked when anyone presumes to know.

And really, it's a touch ironic. When God permits evil, as we understand it, we insist that it is because He is not who He claims to be. When we permit evil, we're "rightly" respecting each other's freedom.

user9712

@fredsbend : Even if they are not exact (in my 1st posts I say near perfect) they are essential mirror image organs. If my mirror image house has siight differences in room size or window placement but has all the same systems & its functions (even if theres a few differences in placement) but in reverse its still overall a mirror image house. The point is you still must know everything about the other house to even make 1 thats even basically close in its design & to provide close to the

fredsbend

@svidgen I would certainly not permit my son to harm my daughter out of love for him. Likewise, it is odd to say that God permits someone to harm another because of love for the perpetrator. Damn the perpetrator! Protect the innocent! But that is not what happens.

In fact, God doesn't appear to do anything at all in this world.

Transcript for