Christian Science: Here's your Chance

[The Neo Nerd]

If you want to make a thread that tries to secretly bash theists, make sure it's not so obvious.

Do not presume to know my intentions.

I started this thread to find out exactly what is passing for xtian science these days.

I promise i would be polite and i have been.

Science has no 'proof' of anything beyond the obvious. There are these big assumption that science is so much farther than it really is, or that it can predict more so than not. Atheism requires just as much faith than any theist, honestly.

For example, scientists can preach on about evolution all they want, but the truth is that they are at a complete, utter loss when it comes to how life began in the first place. A single-celled, extremely simple organism cannot be made in even the most sophisticated, controlled laboratory, so how did it happen naturally? The 'lightning in the pond' idea was replaced with nameless inquiry a long time ago, with no other realistic conclusion.

Anyways, because science cannot account realistically for bible phenomena such as the plagues, the Red Sea splitting, etc., the claims of the bible are still highly plausible.

As for the rest of your post, i would look up the concept of logical fallacies before posting something like this again.

Don't take it personally, i'm just pointing out that your above arguments contain poor logic.

-Q

 

[Pegg]

Awwwww now you're just making stuff up.

no, i am not.

scientists are using dna in nanotechnology because dna gives them the ability to program the nanobots

if dna was not programmed, it would not be programmable.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

no, i am not.

scientists are using dna in nanotechnology because dna gives them the ability to program the nanobots

if dna was not programmed, it would not be programmable.

Our ability to mimic something in NO WAY indicates design.

I'm sorry your logic is exceptionally flawed.

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Is that all you've got Pegg? Logically fallacious arguments?

You've been advocating the cause of christian science and you have yet to show anything of intellectual value.

-Q

 

[Pegg]

Is that all you've got Pegg? Logically fallacious arguments?

You've been advocating the cause of christian science and you have yet to show anything of intellectual value.

-Q

well im not up for arguing about it

I've learnt that there is just enough evidence to believe in creation and just enough to believe in evolution

in the end, each individual will make a determination themselves as to which evidence holds more water

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Logical fallacies don't hold water unless you let them

and the fact that the logically fallacious properties of your arguments have been pointed out to you OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, you allow them to.

 

[Pegg]

Logical fallacies don't hold water unless you let them

and the fact that the logically fallacious properties of your arguments have been pointed out to you OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, you allow them to.

i dont believe they are fallacious at all though

Im not one who can believe in the fallacy of blind chance, nor can i believe that something comes from nothing... and until scientists are actually able to demonstrate one creature become another, then their theory in its current form is just not solid enough for me to accept

 

[The Neo Nerd]

i dont believe they are fallacious at all though

Of course you don't, no one would continue with these ridiculous arguments if they believed they were fallacious.

The fact that you are unable to accept that they are fallacious in no way means they aren't.

Im not one who can believe in the fallacy of blind chance, nor can i believe that something comes from nothing

Attacking a strawman again are we?

... and until scientists are actually able to demonstrate one creature become another, then their theory in its current form is just not solid enough for me to accept

So fossil and biological evidence is not something you can accept, yet an invisible being that you have never seen and have no evidence for is something you can accept.

-Q

 

[Pegg]

Attacking a strawman again are we?

not at all.
The earth had no life on it for billions of years, then suddenly life appeared. That is the fact. If life had been here for the 15billion years that the earth has been here, then you might have a point. But the facts are clear. There was no life for a longer period of time then there has been life.

So fossil and biological evidence is not something you can accept, yet an invisible being that you have never seen and have no evidence for is something you can accept.
-Q

pulling an old bone out of the ground and claiming its evidence for one creature changing into another is nothing more then speculation and assumption. I am interested in facts and the fact is that the fossil 'evidence' is anything but evidence.

These things can be interpreted in such a way as to fit the into the theory, but it is not really sufficient evidence.

 

[Breathe]

If life had been here for the 15billion years that the earth has been here, then you might have a point.

Ah, Pegg, you've made a mistake.
Mind if I clear it up?


The earth isn't 15 billion years old.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
The universe is between 13 and 14 billion years old (since the Big Bang).

On Earth, the very earliest origins of life (bacteria) are first started around 3½ billion years ago.


Hope this helps.

 

[McBell]

not at all.
The earth had no life on it for billions of years, then suddenly life appeared. That is the fact. If life had been here for the 15billion years that the earth has been here, then you might have a point. But the facts are clear. There was no life for a longer period of time then there has been life.

But then you would merely change your argument to fit what think are the facts.
For example, the universe existed for billions of years and then boom out of nowhere came the earth with life on it.

pulling an old bone out of the ground and claiming its evidence for one creature changing into another is nothing more then speculation and assumption.

I understand that you must do what you can to dismiss that which disagrees with your beliefs.

I am interested in facts and the fact is that the fossil 'evidence' is anything but evidence.

I have to disagree.
You are not the least bit interested in any facts that you think challenge your beliefs.

These things can be interpreted in such a way as to fit the into the theory, but it is not really sufficient evidence.

Ah yes, your most popular safety net argument.

 

[Where Is God]

Ah, Pegg, you've made a mistake.
Mind if I clear it up?


The earth isn't 15 billion years old.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
The universe is between 13 and 14 billion years old (since the Big Bang).

On Earth, the very earliest origins of life (bacteria) are first started around 3½ billion years ago.


Hope this helps.

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

pulling an old bone out of the ground and claiming its evidence for one creature changing into another is nothing more then speculation and assumption. I am interested in facts and the fact is that the fossil 'evidence' is anything but evidence.

These things can be interpreted in such a way as to fit the into the theory, but it is not really sufficient evidence.

I'm sorry the fact that you believe in a magical man in the sky who you have never seen and who there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR, puts the lie to this.

You believe in a fairy tale and you will do what ever mental gymnastics to protect that belief.

It is typical to the point of cliche.

-Q

 

[thedope]

The moon is at the precise distance from the earth to be able to completely obscure the bright disk of the Sun, allowing the much fainter solar corona to be visible.

Now what are the chances of that?

Pretty significant given the facts.

 

[thedope]

Here is a christian science.

The measure you give is the measure you receive. This is relevant to our perception of value. The world is not inherently valuable for what it has to offer. We give the world all the value it has for us.

Things are as they appear to great extent because you insist that it is so. This is another statement of christian science. You will be liable for every careless word you utter. By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.

These statements of christian science describe the laws of perception and how the qualities of human experience are generated.

Not from what goes into a man, but what comes out.

 

[Where Is God]

The moon is at the precise distance from the earth to be able to completely obscure the bright disk of the Sun, allowing the much fainter solar corona to be visible.

Now what are the chances of that?

It must be Gods work

The umbra of the moon is so small that it makes your comment completely irrelevant. The area that is completely cover by it's shadow is minuscule.

 

[Pegg]

Ah, Pegg, you've made a mistake.
Mind if I clear it up?


The earth isn't 15 billion years old.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
The universe is between 13 and 14 billion years old (since the Big Bang).

On Earth, the very earliest origins of life (bacteria) are first started around 3½ billion years ago.


Hope this helps.

ah yes, silly me

cheers for the clarification.

 

[Pegg]

The moon is at the precise distance from the earth to be able to completely obscure the bright disk of the Sun, allowing the much fainter solar corona to be visible.

Now what are the chances of that?

It must be Gods work

there is no point asking evolutionists about the chances of anything because they believe anything is possible (except a magic man in the sky, or a miracle)

they believe a cell formed by chance 3.8 billion years ago...that is akin to believing that 2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1 odds are possible. ( this is the number Dawkins gives in the 'God Delusion' for the chances of 4 players receiving a perfect deal in Bridge...thats a suit of cards each in one deal...which, he says, is the equivalent to a cell forming by chance)



no such luch!

 

[Where Is God]

ah yes, silly me

cheers for the clarification.

At the time, the conditions allowed for their creation.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

As for the rest of your post, i would look up the concept of logical fallacies before posting something like this again.

Don't take it personally, i'm just pointing out that your above arguments contain poor logic.

-Q

I wouldn't go as far as saying 'logical fallacies'. The term is quite abused and therefore ends up becoming a victim of it's own meaning.

The logic is quite solid. Science is a technique of discovery and advancement. It contains nothing beyond speculation about the origins of our reality.
On a smaller scale, science tends to be subjective, which means that a lot of times it only takes into account a given hypothesis.
Evolution is a monumental example of this.

With this being the case, it certainly does take a little bit of faith to want to believe in atheistic views, as science bears no proof of a godless reality.
There is no proof of biblical accounts because there is not much such occurences leave behind. Are we to find proof that rivers filled with blood 3500 years ago?
If you are of the Christian persuasion, God sent the Messiah and left man to their bidding until the final days, so what visible miracles such as seas splitting are going to happen? How can you declare these things are impossible if this is the case?
Of course, this is only the view of a Christian. I am pretty sure any of the Abrahamic religions have other defenses on the subject. Religion does not need to succomb to science because there is nothing to succomb to.