(05-16-2015 03:48 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 03:00 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  be they heinous or mundane, because all sins are equal in the eyes of the lord)

Again. Wrong. Again.

1 John 5:16-17 "If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

I can't help but say... 'you keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means' /I. Montoya

I don't mean it that harsh, I just found it funny. As evidenced by the myriad of religions, I don't 'read' this the way you do...

I don't see differentiation between the 'severity' of the sins... merely the outcomes.

He certainly says that all wrongdoing is sin... which implies that they are all 'the same'... but that the RESULTS from those wrongs isn't always the same.

It seems to say to me that if someone sins and dies as a result (like maybe a suicide bomber) then you don't need to pray for them... I suspect because they are already 'before St Peter' and can 'plead their own case'... But if they DON"T die, then you should pray for them, and God will not punish them for that sin.

Not trying to convince you I am right... merely that your interpretation isn't the only, or even necessarily the right one.

Kruciff, you are exactly the type that bewilders me.

Someday you will look at something created by some scientists in a lab and wonder what the limits of creation are. When that happens, I hope reconsider your entrenched belief in pure, unaltered biological evolution. Intelligent design is becoming the simpler thing to believe despite your resistance.

Gills evolved into the aorta Hambone. Other than that. Decent discussion.

Intelligent Design is an end around. People are trying to make a square fit into a round hole. No one looking at the system as a whole would say it was by intelligent design. We had a thread on this the other month.


It's a solution trying to find a problem. It's backwards.

(05-16-2015 08:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Intelligent Design is an end around. People are trying to make a square fit into a round hole. No one looking at the system as a whole would say it was by intelligent design. We had a thread on this the other month.


It's a solution trying to find a problem. It's backwards.

I agree on the system as a whole. Human DNA though is another matter. The more we learn the more chance seems unlikely to me.

But we have a LOT more to learn. I would think everyone here will admit that.

The main issue in being a true believing atheist (an atheist who truly believes there is no God, and has put thought into verifying their belief) is one of reconciliation.

You can choose to be an atheist, without attempting to reconcile creation, but that is not a "believing atheist." Thats simply a person who rejects the notion that God exists, without trying to reconcile our existence in the universe. We exist today, something happened, let's reconcile that.

Once an atheist attempts to reconcile creation, thats when they begin to have issues. Some will say "If God always existed, then who created God?" A fair question, which you can ask Him one day. You can brush that off and just move on, but that would be a non-believing atheist. To be a believing atheist, they must answer reality; we are here, we were created from something, reconcile that They start suggesting "there was never nothing, or the universe created itself from another universe, or some other idea that becomes absolutely silly. If you can not believe God always existed, but you have no problem believing gas and dust always existed, you have a major problem with reasonable reconciliation. Its one thing not to believe in God. Its another thing to say its too hard to believe in God, so I'm going to believe in something else which is completely irrational.

It's understandable to find it hard to believe God always existed. He has reminded us that we do not have a full understanding of Him. That concept is beyond our understanding.

But it is an outrageous stretch of the imagination to believe everything in the universe always existed, or was simply able to "create" itself out of nothing. That notion violates the most basic fabric of all of science. You can not be a true scientist and believe that everything we see today has always existed, when the science says otherwise. You can not be a true scientist and believe the universe created itself out of nothing. That violates the laws of science.

It's easy for man-made religious rhetoric to get in everyone's way. But at the end of the day, all you have to truly focus on is our existence. We are here. We were created. You may have a hard time believing in God, but I have a harder time believing a tornado can hit a junk yard and assemble a launch ready space shuttle. At the end of the day, that really is the two arguments. Only one of them is correct. That part has to be reconciled.

(05-16-2015 02:48 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:38 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:00 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Most theists believe in free will. Blaming God, or trying to use argument that because evil exists God must not, for such actions of human free will is completely asinine.

Disappointed this isn't a utopia I guess.

So why would such an intelligent being engage in a battle KNOWING that he has zero chance of winning?

Do you have time to address the thousands of times in history that this has occurred?

Apples and oranges. When it cones to dealing with people, anything is possible. A small asian nation successfully fought off a superpower that should have been able to crush this little nation. Despite the very long odds, the fact that the superpower was not omnipotent nor omniscient meant there was always a chance for an upset. But in this case, we ARE talking about an omnipotent and omniscient being. There MUST be zero chance that Satan could win.

(05-16-2015 09:19 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 08:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Intelligent Design is an end around. People are trying to make a square fit into a round hole. No one looking at the system as a whole would say it was by intelligent design. We had a thread on this the other month.


It's a solution trying to find a problem. It's backwards.

I agree on the system as a whole. Human DNA though is another matter. The more we learn the more chance seems unlikely to me.

But we have a LOT more to learn. I would think everyone here will admit that.

What are you talking about? The more we learn about DNA, the more concrete the theory of evolution becomes. Not only can we see how similar we are to other organisms, we know enough about the mutation patterns to know more precisely when humans diverged from common ancestors, what makes us distinctly different from other primates today and to what degree of cross breeding took place between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.

(05-16-2015 10:02 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 09:19 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 08:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Intelligent Design is an end around. People are trying to make a square fit into a round hole. No one looking at the system as a whole would say it was by intelligent design. We had a thread on this the other month.


It's a solution trying to find a problem. It's backwards.

I agree on the system as a whole. Human DNA though is another matter. The more we learn the more chance seems unlikely to me.

But we have a LOT more to learn. I would think everyone here will admit that.

What are you talking about? The more we learn about DNA, the more concrete the theory of evolution becomes. Not only can we see how similar we are to other organisms, we know enough about the mutation patterns to know more precisely when humans diverged from common ancestors, what makes us distinctly different from other primates today and to what degree of cross breeding took place between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.

Similarity means nothing. All cars have similar parts. Lawnmowers have similar parts to cars. All of these things were designed. A designer reusing what already works is just as natural as evolution.

What we know is that the DNA is different. Do we know why it changed? Maybe we do. Explain it to me. And then tell me the same change can not have been done via genetic engineering. At best you have something that could have happened two ways.

(05-15-2015 01:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 10:50 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 10:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know this is real simple for me. Once I see proof I'll believe. Just give me an all call. Maybe a face in the sky saying I'm here. A kid remembering something when he comes out of a coma doesn't do it. It could just as easily have been a dream.

I want some proof.

Mach. Go out in your backyard tonight. Look up at the stars. Take a hike in the nearest state park you can find, walk along the beach one evening... Think of all the people you have loved you...think of everyone you have ever loved... God is everywhere.

Applying god like qualities to things we don't fully understand is simply humans trying to rationalize our place in the universe.

Yep.

(05-16-2015 05:05 PM)Claw Wrote:  Kruciff, you are exactly the type that bewilders me.

Someday you will look at something created by some scientists in a lab and wonder what the limits of creation are. When that happens, I hope reconsider your entrenched belief in pure, unaltered biological evolution. Intelligent design is becoming the simpler thing to believe despite your resistance.

I don't understand being an atheist. I don't understand being a theist. We have zero proof on either end. What bewilders me is the willful blind eye people take when they create this intelligent designer. What is your working theory.

We can test natural selection. We see daily evidence of this. Drug resistant bacteria.

What is your working theory? Why do you have such a need. There is no credibility or reason in Intelligent Design. None.

(05-17-2015 10:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't understand being an atheist. I don't understand being a theist. We have zero proof on either end. What bewilders me is the willful blind eye people take when they create this intelligent designer. What is your working theory.

We can test natural selection. We see daily evidence of this. Drug resistant bacteria.

What is your working theory? Why do you have such a need. There is no credibility or reason in Intelligent Design. None.

If you want to dismiss God's existence from a discussion of natural selection on a Wiki page, that's your right, but dont try to pretend you are an expert on this subject when you are limited to Wikipedia.

If you know anything about the history of Darwins theory and book, you would know that A) he had issues with it, especially due to a lack of fossil records, and B) natural selection was simply a natural representation of artificial selection, which was known about for centuries, and discussed in the Bible.

What you still havent tackled is the reconciliation of creation. Talking about how plants and animals can be bred naturally or artificially, which is directly spoken of in the Bible, does not do this. You have to reconcile how things truly originated.

For believers in God, we take Him at his word that he said "Let there be light." As Einstein's theory explains, light equals energy, and from that all known particles, elements, and everything from you to me originated. Work backwards in time from what we know about the universe, and the Bible matches up with what we observe. There is scientific evidence that matches the Bible, which is why some scientists were so opposed to the idea of the big bang. To them, anything that substantiated the Bible was bad news. And those scientists were proven wrong. Scientifically.

Dont get hung up on a moth going from gray to black to gray within a century, and believe that dismisses the existence of God. That point has NOTHING to do with the existence of God. But those who do not like the idea of God will cling to it has proof and hope, while ignoring the giant elephant in the room; which is the inability to truly explain the origination and creation of everything. If you do not believe in the existence of God, you must be able to explain the basic idea of how everything got here. You have three options:

1. God

2. Everything always existed, and just morphed into what we have now. (For these people, it's impossible to think that God has always existed, but elements and rocks, well that's no problem.)

3. Everything appeared from nowhere. (Of course, this would violate the scientific law of conservation, but violation of science is apparently allowed when you are trying to dismiss the existence of God.)

If you really want to get down to the TRUTH, stare at options 1 thru 3. Those are the options. This isnt about moths turning black to purple to blue to gray. It isnt about sloths growing a fourth toe. Those are all giant red herrings and slight of hands to take your eye off of the actual item you must reconcile. You must reconcile creation, and those are the three options above. If you can not explain creation, nothing else matters. I have yet to see anyone tackle CREATION. Those who attempt to try to start in the middle. (Well, we had THESE pidgeons a million years ago, and now we have THESE pidgeons today, so there is no God.)

If anyone believes there are some items to be added to the list 1 thru 3, just say so. But the item must deal with the original creation. Thats the part that must be reconciled.

(05-16-2015 08:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Intelligent Design is an end around. People are trying to make a square fit into a round hole. No one looking at the system as a whole would say it was by intelligent design. We had a thread on this the other month.


It's a solution trying to find a problem. It's backwards.

Believing everything to have a rational/physical explanation is also a facile end-around.

(05-15-2015 10:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know this is real simple for me. Once I see proof I'll believe. Just give me an all call. Maybe a face in the sky saying I'm here. A kid remembering something when he comes out of a coma doesn't do it. It could just as easily have been a dream.

I want some proof.

Don't worry, you will find out one day. Free Will is an awesome thing Mach!

U of M I don't think you know as much about Darwin as you think. Once he lost his daughter Annie he blew it all out of the water. Any hesitation he had before then was because of social standing within society. He had a working theory that he was worried about being burned at the stake for. In his writings it is very clear he believed mans origin came from the organic world. We were a descendant of a common ancestor. No Adam and Eve.

(05-17-2015 03:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  U of M I don't think you know as much about Darwin as you think. Once he lost his daughter Annie he blew it all out of the water. Any hesitation he had before then was because of social standing within society. He had a working theory that he was worried about being burned at the stake for. In his writings it is very clear he believed mans origin came from the organic world. We were a descendant of a common ancestor. No Adam and Eve.

But he never reconciled creation.

If he believes we came from the organic world, he still has yet to say where the organic world came from.

Which leads us back to option 1, 2 & 3 above.

Are you familiar with Miller Urey?

(05-17-2015 04:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Are you familiar with Miller Urey?

I wrote a paper on such an experiment back in high school. I support the fact that amino acids and life block building materials could be created that way. It does not violate any biblical teachings, as the layout of creation says that the ability of animals and plants to reproduce was created prior to the sun being created.

But this is still jumping into the "middle" of existence. Actual creation is the beginning of everything, which this experiment does not deal with.

Please tell me more, brilliant atheist scientists...

Oh bright minds of the message board please explain the origins of life to me...

Oh wise ones teach me...