Creationists: Here's your chance

sandy whitelinger · May 18, 2010

The_Evelyonian said:
I appreciate the effort Peacewise but trying to get Genesis to line up with science is like trying to nail jell-o to a tree. It just doesn't work.

Freeze the Jell-o first.

McBell · May 18, 2010

sandy whitelinger said:
Freeze the Jell-o first.

It still does not work.
Once it thaws...

And that is provided you freeze it with the nail in it

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Mestemia

This thread gets loads more intelligent with

Jollybear on ignore.

I have a simple question for you. Why are you on a religion forum that has a wide range of people with a wide range of views if you are afraid to listen or discuss with some? Why do you look down on some who disagree with you? Do you think you are any better than me?

You know, my posts and this debate could go by A LOT faster if things like this did not have to be said or addressed and if questions and arguments would actually be addressed as well, the discussion would go by a lot faster.

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Painted_Wolf

I just want to know what you consider information.

Ok, well I told you, information comes from minds, intelligence. If it does not come from minds, then one cannot rightfully call it information. They can call it gibberish and say it does not come from minds, but then, how can a complex body come about without a mind, with no information?

Particularly the first life form.

Actually yes we have.

The Human Genome Project for example... and the list of species we have the complete DNA encyclopedia for is growing every year.

I didn’t say they did not LOOK at it, I said they did not look at the millions of miles long scroll of it.

Yup, we can count. We do it by breaking the DNA up into "chapters" and then reading those and putting them back together again. Most of the time to look for changes, we just compare "chapters" or specific genes.

Have they looked at the whole scroll? Miles long, from here to the moon and back ten times over long? Have they looked at that whole thing? And if not, how can they know if there was anything ADDED at the end of the scroll or in the scroll? For instance, lets say the scroll has 1 zillion letters, how do they know if it comes to be 1 zillion and 1?

that particular mutation did add any new "information" but there are mutations called duplications that would. You would go from GCACAG to GCACAGCAG and this would make something totally new because of the new information.

Here is a quote I found “Another scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.”

What you did is did change somethings function!

By changing that one letter you added the amino acid Serine instead of Glutamine and totally changed the information and thus the function of what would be made.

I know what I will do, I will use a simple explanation to prove my point. Let’s say you have a hairy bear, with long hair. This bear has sex with another hairy bear, then they produce offspring and there kid is a hairy bear. Then let’s say there is a bear with short hair, it has sex with another short hair bear and they produce offspring that has short hair. Now natural selection takes over and it is very hot outside. So the long haired ones die off, while the short haired ones don’t die off, there, that is the end of the information for the long hair. How is the short haired ones which don’t have the information for long hair, pass down long hair information?

this is why I hate the language analogy... it's very misleading.

What you did is more like changing "rain" to "rein"... you totally change the meaning of the word (keeping it useful) by simply changing a single letter.

Ok, in some cases that could happen with the English language. But let’s take rain again, change it to “ainr” < no longer useful. And even if it does change to rein from rain, it is only still USEFUL within it’s proper context. For instance, the whether forecast for charlotte Monday is going to be rain. Now change that to “the whether forecast for charlotte Monday is going to be rein” it does not make sense does it?

Plus I was talking about scrambling letters, in the word rain and rein you did not scramble it, you changed the A to a E.

Except that DNA isn't anything like words. And adding more "DNA WORDS" totally changes the information held by the DNA and what it can produce.

Whether it’s words or language or blueprint, all of that is information and DNA is information based. And information comes from intelligence.

Plus adding words does not necessarily mean changing the information. Watch “I got up and cooked eggs” and now watch “I got up and fried my eggs”. It still means the same thing. Now if I said I cooked eggs AND made toast, that would be adding information.

Except that your example would actually change the sentence to this: "today I got up out of bed and went for a jog".

That was not my example. I said “I got up and cooked 4 eggs” to “I got up and fried 4 eggs”.

but it isn't information of the same thing...you are now making something totally new. This is why I hate the word analogy so much.. it is totally bogus and only makes people get the wrong idea.

Huh? You lost me. I did not make something new. I got up and cooked 4 eggs, to I got up and fried FOUR eggs. It means the same thing.

actually we can do pretty decent reconstructions just like forensic science does, based on the muscle scar marks and other easy to figure out facts.

When you have sculls, you have to imagine or speculate what they looked like with skin on. And then you have to speculate if they were fury or not.

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

There are no diseases or accidents that can reproduce these in either human or ape. That is why they are not included.

I don’t know what it is, but for some reason I am not understanding what your trying to say here. Could you detail please?

Facts speak for themselves.

Facts speak for themselves yes, but macro evolution does not speak for itself, that’s FOR SURE.

When it comes to facts, I believe ALL facts. I DENY NO facts at all, not even ONE.

Yes, but bad metaphors do more harm than good.

Ok, well then give a GOOD metaphor then.

Like the "DNA WORD" metaphor. All it does is promote confusion by making you misunderstand how DNA functions. I would much rather actually teach you about DNA than fill your head with false ideas.

Ok, give me a GOOD metaphor for DNA then. If the English language is not a good metaphor, give me what you think is the BEST one?

Because now you have twice as much...
extra copies produce extra gene products... So now instead of making one protein, now it makes two... and now one of the copies can change without harming the organism so you can not only make the old protein but now you can also make a totally new one.

How does the copy change? If you copy something in a printer, it’s a copy of that which was printed, so how does it change?

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Painted_Wolf

Yup... quite a few, but they aren't always very good at it.

Well obviously because you would not expect a water AND land breather to breath better than JUST a land breather. Designs have trade offs.

Because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support that idea.

And is there any scientific evidence AGAINST the idea? I don’t know the answer to this, but I’ll ask you, maybe you know. There is just too much to read and I don’t know everything. Is there any fossils in the fossil record of these kinds of fish that breathe in and out of water?

Because keeping the ability to breath in the water severely limits where you can go on land. Amphibians can't live in a dry place, but a lizard can. Bugs did the same thing... they gave up their aquatic gills (except for some larval stages) in favor or a breathing system that lets them live anywhere on land.

Ok, so we have a water/land breather. This water/land breather has sex with a water/land breather and they have a baby whom they passed their information down to, which is to be a water/land breather. Where do they get to become JUST a land breather?

They were adapting to take advantage of places where their predators couldn't follow them, but where they could still find food. And because there weren't a lot of other fish there, they didn't have a lot of competition for that food.

Why wouldn’t other fish be there to get that food?

Why wouldn’t the predators follow them?

Why wouldn’t there be NEW predators were they went?

And still how would this turn them into a different kind of fish?

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Evelyonian

I'm getting close, believe me.

Come on now, this is a discipline for me too, so be fair. Patience would not be called patience if there was not frustration go against.

I think if we BOTH keep in mind that we live in two completely different worlds and practices and beliefs and we don’t know each other very well, accept on here, that should help us have compassion for one another.

The Einstein Cross. The light from a single quasar is distorted as it passes through the gravitational field of a foreground galaxy.

Ok, I am going to ask a few questions about the picture.

What is the black outer part?

What is the blue section?

What is the white section? (I assume the black is space, and the white is the light?) but what is the blue?

You misunderstood.

You asked how I can deny something even though I don't know for certain that it's wrong. That's why I brought up the FSM and Co. Simply because we don't know an idea is wrong is no reason to assume it's right.

Actually I KNOW the pink unicorn is NOT God. The first reason I know this is because a pink unicorn is a material thing. Spaghetti is a material thing, I know this because I eat spaghetti. This is why such statements are mockeries. A teapot is a material thing, I know this because my grandma made tea from it.

The second reason I know these are not gods or God is because they are…here is the big word ((((((((FINITE)))))))))

Now that is not to say they do not EXIST in the spirit world (although I have my doubts that they would), but if they do exist, they are NOT GOD, because they are FINITE. We exist, but we are not God and why? Because we are FINITE, that’s why.

Also, simply because we can't prove something isn't there is no reason to even entertain the possibility that it is.

That would hold true for things that are mockeries and have no solid history behind it or good arguments behind it. But in the case for God, this is not true and therefore to assume he is not there is a dangerous gamble.

Now if you respond to this by saying it’s nonsense again, remember, that is not an argument, nor a refutation.

"...and then flies back to its own flock to declare victory."

What do you mean?

Seriously though, if you call my statements nonsense or they don’t make sense, or you don’t answer some questions, then you have stopped debating. So by the standards of debate, you are losing the debate.

That does not mean I won the war, it just means I won this battle. Unless you can pick yourself up and fire away by getting back to debate methods.

This is a variation of the argument from personal incredulity.

"I can't understand how Theory A accounts for Phenomenon X, therefore Theory B must be right."

"The idea of the Universe coming from nothing seems implausible to me, therefore god must have done it."

You’re not understanding something. I’ll tell you what, I’ll spell it all out.

If something comes from nothing, why is there something rather than nothing? If something does not come from NOTHING, that means something comes from something. That something else is either a form of chaotic energy or it comes from a mind. If it comes from chaotic or static mindless energy then when did it BEGIN or START it’s creating process, since it is eternal in time? Thus a contradiction. If a mind did it, how did the mind break the cycle of eternity in order to BEGIN a creation? If the universe created itself, how could it create itself since it would already be there in order to create itself, therefore would have no need to create itself? If the universe is an illusion, why does it seem so real?

You see, there is no other angle to hit at here. It’s either one of these that is true. And don’t come back and say “except for the one you did not think about” because look, there is no other angle to hit at. This covers ALL bases. If you want to find a problem with all 5 of these views, by all means do so, but one of them has to be right since there is no other angle to hit at. All of these views HEM us all in from every side.

So it’s more like this “the idea of the universe coming about from any of these 5 views seems implausible to me, therefore ONE OF THEM must have done it”.

That’s how it should be put.

Because that is the WAY IT IS by fact.

So you say.

Sometimes this turns into a completely meaningless discussion. Please, let’s keep it meaningful.

I had said “I told you already, there is only 6 views on the table, as much as you don’t like any of them, ONE of them is more plausible then the rest of them.”

And you say “so you say” that is meaningless. Your acting like I was saying one of those views is plausible, period. I don’t know if you’re doing that on purpose or you misunderstood. I was saying ONE of those views has to be more plausible then the REST of them, but that in no way means perse that it is plausible in ITSELF.

Can you give me a meaningful answer or response to that?

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Well, first off we have to establish what you're trying to prove. I'm not even sure of what that is anymore.

What conditions does my view (view of God’s existence) have to meet?

Spell them all out for me.

Some Scientists do, yes. However you cannot judge the whole based on the actions of a few.

True, agreed. Therefore big bang, something from nothing, macro evolution, cosmic evolution, it’s all philosophy.

Look up the scientific method.

Tell me what it is in your own words?

You still don't see the flaw, do you?

I see what you’re getting at, yes. But you’re not seeing what I am saying, which is there is no other angle to hit at, one of these 5 views are right, I am just going to say 5, because your position (I don’t know) is not a view in itself.

You cannot say complexity = design and then create a loophole. The entire thing falls apart when you do.

Your either not understanding the loophole or you’re on purpose trying to dismiss it. YES, there is a loophole and it is a VALID STRONG ONE.

"Complexity is evidence of design."
"And you believe god is complex?"
"Yes."
"So what designed god?"
Nothing, god wasn't created or designed."
"So then how is complexity evidence of design? You just said yourself that god is complex but not designed."
"Well, there had to be a first cause."
"Irrelevant. Either complexity is evidence of design or it isn't. So, which is it?"

This is where your not understanding or your dismissing something very powerful. It’s NOT (it’s NOT) Irrelevant. There HAS to be a FIRST cause BECAUSE if there was not, all events would NOT happen, or they would all happen at the same time, thus leaving us NO MOTION.

To this day you have not addressed that. If you’re not going to address it, how about ATLEAST tell me WHY it’s not worth addressing?

You cannot make the statement that complexity is evidence of design and then have a loophole. Either complexity is designed or it isn't, it's black and white.

No, no, there is a loophole. Even if God is NOT the correct view, STILL there has to be a FIRST cause otherwise if there is not, all events would not happen, or they would all happen at the same time, thus leaving no motion. Your bent on not addressing that, you keep saying it’s nonsense or it’s irrelevant or it’s not worth addressing. I’m sorry, it is very worth addressing. Many minds have used this argument, it’s worth addressing.

To simply say, "All complexity except X is designed." takes your statement from evidence to special pleading.

No it don’t take it from evidence to special pleading, because there has to be a first cause. Don’t you agree there has to be a first cause no matter what view is right? If you don’t agree, then by default your saying it’s eternal, with no cause, therefore you run into the problem of infinite regression. And then if you say you neither commit to the infinite regression NOR a first cause view, then you run into the problem of taking a gamble, where I could be right. Either way, you’re not safe. You think staying in the uncommitted position that saves you, no it don’t.

You not only can't say that all complexity other than god is designed but, as long as you hold that god is both complex and uncreated, you really can't say that ANY complexity is evidence of design because you have a god who proves the contrary.

No matter how you approach it, your loophole is your undoing.

There has to be a first cause. There is no way of you getting around it. No matter how you approach it, you can’t escape it, therefore you must address it.

Also maybe intelligence is neither simple nor complex, maybe it’s a “whole different animal”. Therefore if this is the case, the universe is evidence of design because of it’s complexity and God still exists since he is not simple.

But even if my maybe is wrong, again, you still have to deal with “first cause, first cause, first cause”.

Or, the Universe is the result of a process that we don't yet understand.

"We don't know." =/= "God did it."

Or, the universe is the result of a process that we don’t yet FULLY understand, but we do have a most plausible view out of all the views that ONLY exist.

“we don’t know.”=/=”chance did it” according to Richard Dawkins.

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Oh, I know evidence means nothing to you. You've proven that quite conclusively.

So now you TWIST my words to make them mean what I did not mean? Great job.

I had said “How do you deal with that? Oh, I know, you DON’T deal with it, you dust it under the rug. And then shout “where is the evidence, where is the evidence” < those words are becoming quite meaningless.”

Yes evidence means a lot to me, but what I meant was that by you not addressing my argument and then still pounding away asking “where is the evidence, evidence, evidence” that is quite MEANINGLESS talk.

Except for the fact that I'm not the one who's hemmed in. I'm not making a claim as to the origin of the Universe. All I'm saying is that your argument from complexity cannnot stand, that's all.

Ok, well, you’re wrong. You are hemmed in. There is only 5 views on the table (omitting the I don’t know one) and I explained above how there is no 7. You are hemmed in because there is no other one you can commit to, and if I am right, you’re not safe. So ya, your hemmed in whether you like it or not.

For some reason this appears to be volitional on your part now.

So, you do in fact claim omniscience then?

This has nothing to do with omniscience, it has everything to do with logic. There is only 5 views. Ether the universe is eternal, or it came from nothing by chance over much time, or it made itself, or it’s not here, or an intelligence made it.

To keep stating over and over there COULD be a 6th view (omitting I don’t know) is at best a lack of understanding and at worst intellectual dishonesty. Now if it’s a lack of understanding, then perhaps I will have to detail my explanations.

Why do you have such difficulty accepting that fact that we just don't know for certain? You demand that, if we don't know for certain, then we must pick the most plausible cause. However, whenever we try to tell you that the cause you've picked is implausible, you simply declare that we are wrong and you are right.

I did not say we KNOW for certain or have 100% proof. I said there is ONLY 5 views on the table. And there can ONLY BE 5 views based on the fact that all 5 hit every angle and they all still leave a problem. And I said that out of all the implausible views, one of them is more plausible then the rest, but that does not perse mean it is plausible in itself. And of course I am talking like this for your sake, I am not admitting my view is implausible. But for your sake I am trying to spell out my point in a simple way to help you understand. Because it seems like your either missing it, or your willfully not understanding what I am telling you.

Except for the one (or more) that you haven't thought of yet.

There is only 5, 6 if we mention yours which is not a view. So we’ll just mention 5. There is no 6. That’s a fact.

I do know the truth. The truth is, I don't know how the universe got here. I know that I know that because I know it.

O, and how do you know that you know that you know that you don’t know how it got here?

You continue to prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.

No, I did not prove that I don’t know what I am talking about. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ll explain below

We're used to an ordered reality.

Just as I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Just because there is order and then an appearance of NO ORDER at the quantum level, does not mean there is no reason or cause for that lack of order at the quantum level. Things don’t happen for nothing.

The quantum realm is anything but ordered. It's a frenzied and chaotic place. The quantum reality doesn't operate like ours does.

Prove this.

You can't predict cause. You can't predict effect.

Who cares if you can or can’t. Making a wrong prediction or not knowing what will happen does not mean there is no cause. I can’t believe we are even debating this section. Talk about quantum weirdness, THIS is weird here debating this section.

You can't show that cause and effect even apply on the quantum scale.

And you can’t show that there IS NO CAUSE and EFFECT on the quantum scale.

Don’t you realize that?

Plus EVEN if you were right. Ok, answer this question then, why is there SOMETHING rather than nothing? And why does something at the quantum level happen, rather than nothing happen?

Go ahead and answer that one.

Macroevolution and the Big Bang are based on observation and verifiable evidence. They are anything but philosophy.

Oh yea sure……it is. Last time I checked, I witnessed it go bang too. And I lived so far to be 4 billion years old, I witnessed macro evolution all the way through. Oh yea, we observe it alright, give me break.

No, they are certainly philosophy. If they are theory and interpretation and hypotheses, then it is philosophy.

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Well, good for Jose_Fly, if he indeed said that macroevolution is just an inference then he's misinformed.

Interesting two macro evolutionists disagreeing amongst each other. I did not even have to tell you it’s an inference, one of your own group did it for me. I would like to see you and him debate about whether or not it’s an inference. That should be good to listen too. Of course you would not be disagreeing about the belief itself, just disagreeing about that it’s an inference.

Macroevolution can be shown in the fossil record, the genetic code of every living thing, and observed in bacteria and other forms of life.

We've seen it, tested it, and verified it.

No, you have not seen it, no one has seen it. They think they have, but there are gaps, there are micro changes, that’s all they have seen. They have not seen new information come about, just a loss of it.

So, god has limits?

He doesn't know before hand what someone will do in a given situation, therefore he is not omniscient.

You misunderstand. If God gives FREE WILL, that means he is GIVING UP knowing what they will do in the future with that free will. You cannot give free will and at the same time know what will be done with that will, for if you know what it will do, then you are controlling what it will do, thus it’s not truly free will.

With design, comes trade offs. Either you design the will to be in bondage so you will know, or you design it to be free, so you will not know. There are trade offs with design. That’s how design works.

His power has limits, therefore he is not omnipotent.

Right, he cannot make himself none existent, so yes his power has limits. But nothing in his creation can limit him. He can manipulate the laws of nature anytime he wants, thus miracles. In that sense he has all power over creation.

Infinite: having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude.

Click to expand...

Right, he is infinite by this definition, yes. He is infinite in space, he is eternal in time. Let me explain that time part because I think it may cause confusion. Time is not a TAPE that is rolling, in other words the FUTURE is not SET in stone. Time is not a rolling tape sort of speak. God is not infinite in the sense of being outside of time, time is not there as a tape to be OUTSIDE OF. God just has no beginning in his existence within himself. In that sense he is infinite or eternal in time. As for space, he is infinite in space.

Therefore, by your own admission, god is finite and, by your own standards, cannot be responsible for creation.

Wrong. But how did you make that leap from the explanations you gave above? It’s like if someone told me 2+2=5 I would ask, how did you come to that leap that it’s 5?

Care to try again?

Just did.

Well, we just established that your god has limits, therefore, he's not infinite. Apparently, he is finite and no higher or better than Baal, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other superfriends.

Wrong, you either misunderstood, or you have faulty logic, or I misunderstand your logic, and therefore you have to explain your conclusion better.

So, I'll ask again, what created god?

And jollybear gives off a big yawn and says “first cause”.

I'm sorry but I have no concern or reverence for fairy tales or people's imaginary friends.

Some are fairy tales and some are imaginative, but ONE of them is real. For someone who sticks to the “I don’t know” position he sure wavers back and forth between asserting stuff with utmost certainty. If you don’t KNOW I am wrong, then you should have a measure of concern. I’ll ask you this, if you’re not one bit concerned AT ALL, why do you even debate the issue? THAT is a good question right there for ya.

I have no reverence for some managers at my job, simply because they display hypocrisy. But I do have concern for my job and therefore am very careful.

You don’t have to revere my God, but why show no concern for yourself?

I don't know. Perhaps if he left a mark on me that others could see and that couldn't be explained away naturally.

If there was no natural explanation, would you say “well we don’t yet KNOW why the mark is there, so why say “God did it”? Thus the “God of the gaps” again. Would you do that?

I mean how far will atheists go before they realize that “this natural explanation” thing is just a display of having a CLOSED mind. Isn’t science the quest for “TRUTH” or is it just a quest to FIND ONLY a natural explanation? What is it all about, finding a natural explanation, or finding THE ACTUAL explanation?

To limit yourself ONLY to the natural displays an OBVIOUS closed mind.

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

If god decided to send me to hell but then offered me a chance at redemption I would ask him what he wanted me to do.

This is the first sane thing I heard from you so far.

My next question is this: whatever he asked you to do, would you be WILLING to do it at all cost?

Good, you've given me something else to use against god.

"Why didn't you believe in Me?"
"Why did you take such efforts to hide yourself?"

No, you can’t use that against him, because you twisted what I said. He hides himself from those who REJECT the OBVIOUS evidence. The evidence for God is the same as the evidence for gravity. IF you accept the evidence for gravity but reject the evidence for God, then God will hide himself from you. So it’s more like this

God > “why didn’t you believe in me?”
You > “why did you take such efforts to hide yourself”?
God> “because you rejected the evidence for me, so I will not force myself on you”

Look up the Forer Effect

It would be best if you just responded to my point

“Yea, and there are many people who have “experienced” God, including myself, so we have trust (faith) in him based on the experience and based on history and on a philosophical level as well.”

Still, you don't need faith to know that those other people actually exist.

Some folk have heard God’s addable voice or seen him manifest to them in a form. They don’t need faith. Based on their experience, they choose to trust God. There trust is not in the experience, the experience makes them know, there trust is based on the experience.

So one does not need faith to know God spoke to them or appeared to them.

This is not an argument.

Not my call to make. I know why I don't believe. I have no idea why you believe.

I am telling you why I believe. I am been telling it in detail during this whole debate. In short because it’s the view that is most plausible and it does have evidence, just not tangible if ya will. It’s like gravity, it has evidence, just not tangible.

Again, believing isn't something you can make yourself do. If you think otherwise then I challenge you to believe that your name is Ariel Pennyfeather and you are from Mars. If you succeed then head for the nearest psych ward.

I'll respond to the rest later. I have other things to do right now.

There is a few problems with what you said here.

First is it’s not making yourself believe that which YOU KNOW is false. (I know I am NOT from mars)

Second it is not making yourself believe that which you know to be implausible.

Thirdly YOU CAN choose to believe what you want, just speak it out your mouth and say “I believe_______ < and fill in the blank. It’s very simple. You choose what you believe in or what you don’t believe in. Yes, you do have free will, yes you do.

I remember the time I was practicing astral projection, I did affirmations many times before I went to bed. Doing these affirmations was not because I found it HARD to believe, it was to PROGRAM or REPROGRAM my mind to tap into the reality I already believed was there. Now if someone did this and did not believe it was already there, they could do the affirmations and it would reprogram there mind and it would have an effect. Thus, you DO choose what you believe in.

All it takes is a word and a will.

Even in the case of believing that I myself am from mars, even though I “KNOW” I am not from mars, I could FORCE myself to believe it by pure choice, I could say “I am from mars!” < there I just said it. But my belief is not as powerful as my knowledge, for I KNOW I am not from mars. But I am just trying to show that one can choose whatever they want despite the evidence or knowledge.

It certainly throws the book's trustworthiness into doubt.

Right, I am not disputing that, yes It could throw the book’s trustworthiness into doubt, but that doubt does not necessarily mean that the WHOLE book is UNTRUSTWORTHY in everything it says.

So, god doesn't care if someone sees that the earth looks old and their faith is damaged or even destroyed because of it?

God does not care what you think of him or what he does, he is going to do it anyway because he is God and he is in charge. He is not affected by your feelings. He is very confident about himself and his wisdom. He is better and wiser than any of us are. So he don’t care what someone thinks to the contrary.

But, he DOES care that if you distrust him, this will cut you off from him and lead you to hell. He does care about that. So, what he wants is your trust, he cares about that. He cares for you, but not about your false ideas or false interpretations of what he does.

Actually it’s kind of similar to how I do things in every day life. I care about people, but I don’t care what they think about what I do or believe, I am going to do and believe what I want whether they like it or not.

You can’t please everybody, can you? So some people understand what God is doing and some don’t. You can’t please all, can you? So, he don’t. Simple

IF they get lost, it’s their OWN fault, not God’s fault.

God pointed them in the right direction, he gave them road signs and they decided to not follow them, so they get lost.

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Right. See he's only telling us one thing and giving us evidence for another. So, really, how can THAT be labeled decepti....oh, wait.

I am going to put this so simple to prove my point. Let’s say I build a cart with old wood and old weels and then someone comes by and says “oh look at the old cart, it must have been this way for awhile”. Then I say “no, I just built it today” now imagine if they responded by saying “oh so your being deceptive then?” would that not be absolutely insane? If they responded like that I would be like “ok…..are you alright man? Is there any logic up stars there? I was not being deceptive at all, I was just wanting to build a cart and who cares if it looks old or not, I was just building a cart. What’s your problem?” then the guy responds “well since it looks old, you deceived me” if they responded like that I would be like “I did not lie about anything, because I did not tell you it was old at all, actually I was honest with you, I told you it was built just today” then they respond “ok, but you deceived me because it looks old” and then I would respond “ok, you’re nuts, see ya”.

You see the point? It’s the same with God building the universe.

So, if I am to take responsibility for my mistakes then why can god not take responsibility for his?

Because you can only take responsibility for a mistake IF YOU ACTUALLY MADE A MISTAKE. That’s why God don’t’ take responsibility for his mistakes because he don’t make any. His wisdom is perfect. If we don’t trust him, that is OUR mistake and it’s the BIGGEST mistake of our entire life.

Although God is saddened and feels sorry for how we may misunderstand him, YES, he does feel sorry that we misunderstand him. If you want to call that a form of taking responsibility, then fine he does take responsibility. But he does not take responsibility by means of regretting what he did or did not do, for what he does or does not do is in his perfect wisdom, therefore he won’t say sorry for what he did or did not do. He will only say sorry for how you misunderstood him.

If he takes that form of responsibility, will you then take responsibility for your mistake?

If god created the world to look older than it is and someone slips because of that, how is that their fault? Because they didn't take the word of a bronze age story book over what they could actually see?

Right, it’s their fault, they CHOICE not to believe his word. It’s not like they were ignorant of what it said.

God, it reminds me of that Groucho Marx quote, "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

Take the gamble and choose wisely which one you believe.

See, You're saying that I should just ignore whatever science says and walk by faith. However, if god made us in his image then what does that say about the matter? Does god walk by faith?

You know, it’s getting very old how atheists and agnostics talk as if they OWN science, I am getting quite irritated by it. I am not saying we should ignore WHATEVER science says. You must realize that some things science says are WRONG and some things they say are RIGHT. As for scientific facts, they are ALL right, as for some of the THEORIES or explanations of those facts, those scientific theories are sometimes WRONG. Don’t listen to those things that are WRONG.

I am not saying to dismiss reason and go by faith. I am saying go by the most REASONABLE faith out of all the 5 views on the table. Faith has to be based on evidence and reason, not based in a vacuum

If god gave me a brain capable of reason and critical thinking then why am I to be blamed for using it?

Actually either God did NOT give you reason and critical thinking, or he gave you it but you’re NOT TRULY using it. Personally I think it’s the second one. There is TRUE reason and FALSE reason. If you were using true reason he would not blame you, if you use it wrongly, you will be blamed. It’s just like anything, you can use your hands to do good or to do bad.

Am I to be condemned for using the best tool that I was given? Am I to be punished and tortured throughout all of the ages of eternity simply because I reached the wrong conclusion? If that is the case then what does that say of god's love or mercy?

It does not say anything about God’s love and mercy, it says A LOT about God’s FIRM justice and accountability he holds us too. God is both loving AND JUST. He is both. That’s why I believe he offers PAROL for those in hell. But, some will be in there for billions of years, if not for eternity because they won’t do what he wants.

"Well, you made a mistake so to hell with you."

What kind of father sits on high and laughs as his children burn?

No, it’s more like this

“well, you made a BIG mistake, the BIGGEST mistake of your life and not only that, but you showed NO CONCERN whatsoever as you made it, so to hell with you”

And you misunderstand in the other part you said. God is not laughing at his children as he makes his sentence on people. He is both saddened and motivated by justice. The fact that he is saddened shows HIS LOVE, although the MERCY is not shown for THOSE individuals. The ONLY HOPE of receiving mercy is only shown when you show concern and take responsibility and realize you deserve what you got.

That is a very tough thing for people to do in hell. It’s tough because they must do this from the heart, not just lie with their words just to save their butt.

No, he just placed all of the evidence for those things.

"Them ain't dinosaur bones, son. The devil done put them there to test yer faith."

Data is facts, theories are explanations of the facts. Dinosaur bones are data, therefore they are facts. So the devil did not put them there. Your mixing things up. There is no evidence that dinosaur bones exist, there is PROOF they exist. Now for the big bang and macro evolution, it’s not the same kind of evidence like the proof for dinosaur bones existing. Dinosaur bones existing is more solid then macro evolution evidence. Stop mixing up data with theories. That is misleading.

So, god only gave the earth a deceptive appearance of age and then didn't bother to warn anyone ahead of time about it. He just said,

"I made it 6000 years ago, take my word for it."

"Who are you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

Did you just hear what you said there? You just contradicted yourself. First you say God did not warn anyone ahead o time about what he did. Then you said that he did by saying “I made it 6 thousand years ago, take my word for it”.

Well if he told us how he did it, then he warned us before we looked at nature then, didn’t he?

And it’s not a DECEPTIVE appearance, it’s just APPEARANCE period.

My school teacher said he had a FULL PURE WHITE head of hair when he was 20 years old. So he APPEARED to be older then what he really was. Does that mean he was lying as he was going around with that white hair? Come on.

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Do you have any idea how severely the results would have to be skewed in order to match up with the bible? There are dozens of different, independent methods for determining somethings age, not just one or two, and each of these methods points to an old earth. Each method would have to be skewed in different, massive ways in order to point to a 6000 year old planet. Are we to believe that each and every one of numerous dating methods used are somehow universally wrong and one bronze age book is right.

Jollybear, come on, you claim to be intellectually honest. You have to be honest with yourself here.

Again, there are assumptions attached to these dating methods. So I question the underlying assumptions attached, therefore that makes me intellectually honest. And even if there was not any assumptions attached (which there is) it would not matter, since God can give an appearance of age, without the deception part.

You’re the one who says it’s intellectually honest to question our beliefs, ok, so would it not be intellectually honest to question dating methods then based on your own standard?

So, again you claim to know the mind of god.

I was just making an argument, that’s all, I was not claiming at that moment to know the mind of God, I was making an argument, big difference.

You said “"God, I would have believed your book but the earth looks so much older than your book says it is. Why did you make it look so old?".”

I said in response “Because he made it in its matured state, he did not make it through a bang over billions of years of cosmic messy evolution. If he made it in it’s matured state, then it’s going to LOOK OLD. Plus all your dating methods are not perfect as you think they are.

That is probably something he would tell you.”

And you did not address the ARGUMENT.

If I said, "I have never debated with

Jollybear." and someone looked over all of my posts and saw that I have indeed debated with you then what would that tell them.

Your twisting my point. It’s more like this “I am lying that I have never debated with Jollybear” then someone looks over your posts and sees you debating me. That would tell them you are honest because they would read the FINE LINE of you saying “I AM LYING that I have never debated with jollybear”.

he book says the world is 6000 years old. The physical evidence says otherwise. This is not a difficult concept.

If it’s 6 thousand, he did not lie, because he TOLD you it. So, ya it’s not a difficult concept indeed.

Yes, what rational person in this modern world of ours would refer to mountains of extraordinarily powerful evidence as "proof"?

It’s not mountains of evidence, it’s mountains of interpretation of facts.

Yes, it's all my fault for believing what I can actually see instead of the ancient scribblings of a remote desert tribe. Oh, woe is me!

Right, it is your fault, you choice to reject it and the evidence for it.

You are responsible for that choice, no matter what the outcome will be.

Nice ad hom.

It’s not a ad hom, it is a good point. You said you would still not believe even if you seen God do something miraculous because you would think your hallucinating. Jesus said the same thing “if they don’t believe the word of God already, they still won’t believe even if someone rises from the dead”. And that’s coming from someone who did tons of miracles.

Well, see, this is part of the problem in believing that the bible is the perfect word of god. The book is so damned vague that people have been struggling for eons to understand it. I would think that god would be a little better able to make his word clear so that all of the interpreting would be unnecessary.

Maybe I overestimate god's abilities?

SOME parts are vague, and some parts are VERY CLEAR. That means some parts NEED to be vague and some parts need to be CLEAR. It’s that simple. If you want to call the bible vague then by that standard this whole debate is vague. You see, that is meaningless.

The bible is clear in tons of stuff it says.

Yes, but to say that he represented my side of the argument correctly was unnecessary. I wouldn't point you to the Ray Comfort Banana illustration and then say that Ray represented your side correctly. I would at least be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't as big an imbecile as Ray is.

You could have merely asked me to watch the video and comment on it. Instead you chose to poison the well.

Ok, pardon me, let me step back and give you the video and let you comment on it. Now I would like you to do two things for me.

Comment on the debate skill ITSELF ALONE of BOTH opponents debating, both peter and Stephen, then secondly, where you think peter could have done better, UNLESS you think he did a perfect job.

Here is the video [youtube]tz-kqgyMNAk[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz-kqgyMNAk this is the first video amongst 11 videos. Click on that and watch and it will also have on the side the other 11 video’s. Enjoy.

There isn't a one word answer to this question, AFAIK. I can't say, "Natural selection is an X process." largely because I don't know of a single word that would apply in that sentence. (Other than "natural" but I know that isn't what you're looking for)

Natural selection is a process that is governed neither by intelligence nor chance. It is governed solely by the rule "survival of the fittest". Those animals best equipped to survive, do survive.

Ok, are they most fit by intelligence or by chance? You’re just begging the question

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Another ad hom, beautiful.

What I said absolutely was NOT an ad hom, no it was not. You had said “and the idea of those machines being intelligent is laughable.”

Then I responded “I find your sentence laughable, how’s that? You saying my sentence is laughable does not address my actual sentence, which seems to be a standard tactic of yours. Never answer any of my questions or arguments. Nice job.

Here is a question for you, if evolution can create intelligence (people) why can’t it create intelligence on a biological level with the micro machines? There’s one for ya.

It bewilders me why you don’t laugh at the idea that evolution could create intelligent beings like ourselves, but yet you laugh at the idea of it being so on a smaller level.

Absolutely amazes me.”

That is not ad hom at all. That was an argument I made. Let me break it down more.

By me saying your sentence is laughable, I was dealing with what you said based on your own tactic, thus treating you how you treated me. So if ANYBODY used ad hom, it would have been YOU FIRST. How can you say that my sentence which was “your sentence is laughable” is ad hom and then not realize by you saying yourself “the idea of those machines being intelligent is laughable” is not ad hom? Is that not a double standard? Of course it is.

You can’t accuse me of the very thing you do yourself.

Make an argument against my point, don’t just say it’s laughable. Make an argument, come on.

I find you not making arguments THAT is laughable. It’s laughable that you think you saying what I have said is laughable is an argument. Because the fact is, it’s NOT an argument. Make an argument.

Saying it’s laughable is not an argument. And don’t come back and say “well I don’t need to make an argument against that since its laughable” because STILL THIS is a debate, to me it’s not laughable, so yes you do need to make an argument. And if your insistent on just sticking to “it’s laughable” that is willfully being unhelpful.

Complex brains are a requirement for intelligence at the level the article was talking about (Knowing exactly what it needs to adapt and somehow willing that adaptation into existence). Micro machines don't have them.

Ok, how do you know micro machines don’t have an intelligence? Or at least a programmed intelligence like a computer would have?

Why do they act in intelligent ways if there not intelligent?

Might be because I know how evolution works.

Ok, so how does it work, in regard to the micro machines?

If god is responsible for this many screw-ups then we aren't just talking about a bad designer, we're talking about a total idiot.

I don’t know what it is, but you do a poor job at addressing arguments. I had told you

“Hold on there, intelligence does not mean GENIUS, it just means intelligence. At the moment I am not arguing that God is a GENIUS (although I believe he is, and I can make arguments to back that up too) but at the moment I am just arguing that there is intelligence. Bad work is still intelligence BEHIND the work. BAD DESIGN is STILL DESIGN. You see?”

And then you give me a big huge list of things that you think are poorly designed. When in fact my argument was not even dealing or claiming everything was GREAT design in the first place. I was saying that bad design is STILL design.

By citing things you think are bad design, that does not REFUTE ACTUAL design, it just says some design is BAD design, that’s all it says. But doing that is not making an attempt to refute actual design.

For instance computers are designed, but if someone designs a virus to damage the computer, does that now make the computer which is damaged no longer designed? Of course not. Damage, or malfunction of a design, or even a poor design is STILL design.

Deal with that point.

Plus I will address your point, which was not an argument AGAINST my point, because it was a argument against something I was not saying, thus it was a straw man. But none the less I will address it.

God makes all things a good design. Some of that design gets damaged, some of it malfunctions. Some of it gets WORN out. But from scratch, all of it was GOOD. There, problem solved.

So it’s not God who is a poor designer or even an idiot, it’s you misunderstanding the point and misunderstanding the design and how or why it gets damaged. And that makes God an idiot? Maybe it’s the other way around.

And this is what the majority of scientists do.

Strange, it seems like some or many don’t do that.

Well, at least when can agree on that. I hate dishonesty too, it makes my skin crawl.

Agreed

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

This is what I advocate doing. However, you must not let your own personal biases get in the way either. Have no ideas that are above reproach. No sacred cows, so to speak.

Right, and I welcome all scrutiny against my view, but I am still going to hold my view UNLESS my view fails or is exposed as false by that scrutiny. I have chosen in other words to COMMIT to one of the views that are on the table. I am not stuck in the “I don’t know” position. Although I will GIVE UP my commitment if I see that it is proven false.

They do this. In fact, the ones who were fired for trying to teach their personal biases as facts got together and made a movie about it. It was called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed!

This is completely unbelievable what I am hearing here. Presenting facts and then a scientist who explains those facts in the context of intelligent design and then states that this is his view, that design is there and he says why, but he clearly distinguishes fact from his view, THAT is not dishonesty and should not be REJECTED. It’s not dishonesty. However if they mix the facts with their view of intelligent design, that is dishonesty and they should be fired for it. However if atheistic or agnostic scientists screw the facts by mixing facts with their opinion of explaining the facts with a atheistic or naturalistic or chance outcome that also should be the means for them being fired. It goes both ways.

Simply put, any scientist, no matter what they believe should state the data BY ITSELF and what it is, BY ITSELF and then distinguish the data or facts from there explanations and then put in a footnote or separate explanation what they think about that data.

That is honest.

I agree. But, as I said before, if you're going to search for truth in a totally unbiased manner then you must allow yourself to question everything you believe in, even god must be on table. I'm not saying that the only way to succeed is to become an atheist, certainly not. All I'm saying is you can't allow any idea to be untouchable.

Right, and that is why I welcome you trying to touch on my God. I welcome the scrutiny, but if I see your arguments as weak, I will not fail to scrutinize your arguments and points. And some things in your responses are not even arguments at all, that is why I keep saying “make an argument”.

To me, your scrutiny is not good enough (at least so far) for me to throw away my commitment to the God view.

For a mutation to be considered "good" the benefits of the mutation to the organism must outweigh any negative side-effects. Some "good" mutations do have negligible negative side-effects. However the mutation is still good because, overall, the mutation helps the animal survive.

Ok, so something bad happening can bring about something good. However that mutation did not increase information. Therefore any good mutation will not change the organism over time.

Plus since there is not ENOUGH of these good mutations, the odds of them creating a new organism is so moot.

And then even if they do come about, sometimes organisms don’t survive by natural selection, sometimes the most fit die by luck. Sometimes it’s survival of the luckiest and the strong die by a fluke.

Remember, one mutation does not a new species make. Good mutations have to build, one atop the other, for generations until you could reach an animal that could be labeled a new species.

Right, but the odds of that happening are small.

Animals do not evolve for no reason. They evolve to fill in niches in their environment. As long as their is no pressure on a species to adapt then they'll (usually) stay largely unchanged.

Ok, so now you’re telling me mutations are not random, but they come about ON PUROSE and FOR a purpose? Almost as if they were intelligent? Why does the bat NOT change over time into something else according to the fossil record? It should have changed IF mutations are always going on in this bat, and GOOD mutations, one on top of another over much time. The bat should have changed into something else, WHY did it not? Are you saying mutations good or bad will STOP if the bat does NOT NEED TO CHANGE FORM?

Problem 1)

Click to expand...

Some animals go for long periods without major changes.

Like I said before, as long as there is no pressure on a species to adapt, they will usually stay unchanged.

Why if mutations don’t stop?

Problem 2) There are gaps in the fossil record.

Not every animal that dies fossilizes. Fossilization only happens under a very specific set of conditions. We're honestly lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the vast number that we do. Still, even if we had no fossils at all, the evidence for macroevolution would still be incredibly strong. The massive number of similarities between the gene sequences of various animals, similarities that could only be there if those animals shared a common ancestor, is by itself very powerful evidence

If the earth is billions of years old and animal history is millions or billions of years old, it don’t matter how lucky fossilization happens, it will fossilize pretty much over sections of those years every FORM of species. But, there are tons of gaps, what does that tell you?

And without the fossils you say the evidence for macro evolution would still be strong based on similarities? No, I don’t think so. Just because all animals have eyes in their head for instance does not mean they came from the same tree or a common ancestor. More like a common designer.

Problem 3)

Click to expand...

"Good" mutations

Like as I said before, a mutation is considered "good" if the benefits to the lifeform outweigh the negative side-effects (if any).

First off, the LUCK of receiving a good mutation is SMALL, one feat in itself. Secondly, this GOOD mutation has to happen in the RIGHT ENVIRONMENT to be considered GOOD, ANOTHER LUCKY TIME FRAME event in itself, another feat to pull off. Thirdly this organism has to make sure it don’t die by luck, another feat to pull off.

Looks like it’s unlikely for the organism to change, the odds are against it.

It’s like taking a cripple, putting him beside a steep mountain without any rope and telling him to climb to the top WITHOUT any help. What are the odds he will make it? Almost none!

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

The information contained within DNA likely formed through a process like Abiogenesis. I don't know much about that subject but you might ask Painted Wolf. I'm pretty sure she knows something about it (I'm positive she knows more than I do )

Ok painted_wolf, let’s hear it?

Sorry for the bold, I had to do it in case you skimmed over.

Just want to be sure before I answer this: You're referring to "irreducible complexity", right?

Right

Again, complexity is in the eye of the beholder.

You believe that the Universe is complex. However, complexity is relative to what we can imagine.
The heart would seem complex with nothing to compare it to, but if you compared it to, say, the inner workings of NASA's shuttle, the heart suddenly looks simple by comparison. Complexity is relative.

This is a weak response. Just because other things are MORE complex then something else does not mean that something else is not complex AT ALL. STILL that something else has VITAL complexity to it, along with the MORE complex thing it’s compared to. Thus your STILL left with the problem, how do you account for the vitally complex system? Taking it and comparing it to something more complex does not deal with the issue, it just makes it worse, because now you’re left with accounting for TWO vitally complex systems, and one being MORE complex than the other.

The fact is, the heart is a VITAL part amongst many parts in our body that help us survive. Take out one of those parts and we die. Our bodies are vitally complex with many vital parts. How do you account for all those parts being there at the same time? And please don’t respond by saying “well the heart long ago in the past may have been something else” because that just begs the question, who cares if it was something else, it would still be vitally complex to that SOMETHING else that it was in. So, how do you account for the vitally complex system?

Also if you want to play the compare game, I’ll go there. Taking the whole body itself, heart and all, compare it to Nasa’s shuttle, I am confident it is more complex then the shuttle.

Oh, really? So you consider what is attractive to you to be universal to every male?

Yes, absolutely.

My point is this: Complexity, like beauty, is relative.

No, it’s not, I explained above. Just because something is MORE complex then something else, does not mean that something else is NOT complex at all, it’s STILL complex.

There are certain features in a woman that you find attractive. However, those same features that you look for may be meaningless to another man.

Wrong, there not meaningless to ANY man. Just some men may sacrifice certain features for a particular women they will settle for.

Some men find intelligence to be extremely attractive,

Wrong, ALL men find intelligence to be extremely attractive. True some may want to be smarter than the women, so in that case they will not want the women to be more intelligent than them, but they would probably still want them to be intelligent. And then in other cases they may not care if the women is more intelligent or on equal ground.

others look at physical appearance before anything else. It varies from person to person

No, you’re wrong, ALL men find physical pretty features to be beautiful or attractive. Now it’s true SOME men will PREFER intelligence over beauty if they had to make a choice, however ALL men if they had the choice and opportunity would PREFER having both physical beauty AND intelligence for their women. So you see, sacrificing and settling for someone that may not have the PREFERENCES of the man, does not mean that the man does not find the physical beauty of such and such a women NOT beautiful.

For instance, I will post this picture here and I am SURE, I am 100% confident that ALL HUMAN MEN who have eyes will consider that this women’s physical appearance IS in FACT beautiful. Now it’s true that SOME MEN may consider someone else MORE beautiful, but that is not my point, my point is that ALL MEN WILL consider this women’s physical appearance to be beautiful. Yes they will. Here is the picture.

It’s a random picture I found on google.

http://img1.chakpak.com/se_images/139215_1024_1280_true/katrina-kaif-wallpaper.jpg

In the same way, complexity is relative.

Wrong, explained above.

How you define complex may not be how someone else does.

I don’t care how they define it, how do you account for complexity and all those vital parts that are needed for the system to work and survive? Who cares about the definition, the FACTS are that complexity is there and VITAL parts are there that make up that complexity and without those vital parts the system won’t work. How do you account for that?

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Simply because you consider a vital organ to be complex doesn't mean that it is.

Oh sure…..it’s not complex. The body, the human body is complex, all organism are….complex. How do you account for the vitally complex parts that make up a system?

I'll agree that a heart is vital for our survival but vitality and complexity are two different things.

How do you account for the vital part (the heart) and all the other vital parts in our body that keep us alive and help us function and survive? All those vital parts make up the COMPLEXITY. How do you account for all those vital parts needed and being there at the same time to keep that complex system working? If you say they were not all there at the same time, then that means the system would not work! That part is obvious, I hope.

Saying a vital part is different than complexity is not helping anything, ok, so what if it’s different? How do you account for the complexity?

The eye.

Ok, so you think the eye is not designed. Ok, is the eye have ANY VITAL complexity to it? How do you account for the complexity in the eye if you say it’s not designed?

Actually, you just shot yourself in the foot....again.

No I did not shoot myself in the foot before let alone again.

Read your sentence again:

"Chance cannot design or cause complex stuff to come to be because first, chance is not goal oriented."

So, in order for something to create complexity it must be goal-oriented, yes?

Yes, goal oriented and intelligent to pull off that goal.

And, by your own admission, you consider a canyon to be complex.

So, do you believe that a river is goal-oriented or not?

The river is not conscious, but the river is complex and so is the canyon. The canyon is not conscious either. Without consciousness there can be no goal coming from the entity. But the fact that the river is complex and so is the canyon shows that a intelligence made it, thus a goal was fulfilled, it namely being made.

God put the law of gravity to make the river flow DOWN, and so it does. God put the canyon in it’s position and form so the water also flows DOWN and not up. God also made the water molecules and how they work, so they will FLOW down. God also made the canyon in such a way so it will ERODE as the water flows DOWN ON IT. So God is goal oriented.

If chance was involved, why is this order ALWAYS like this? If chance was involved this would be all over the place. Water would sometimes flow up instead of down. Sometimes the canyon would not erode and sometimes it would. Sometimes gravity would make water float and sometimes it would not.

Again, how do you deal with the complexity? I am not shooting myself in the foot, I am shooting right at your arguments and you keep hopping around doing a dance as I’m shooting at your feet.

Watch this video, you’l love this, this is like you dancing around and the whole time it’s defeating you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwcdwJXDt-Q

Gotta love those old cartoons, they come in handy sometimes for debates.

You said that chance doesn't exist, that people just use it to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. I feel exactly the same way about god.

Well, one of them has to be right. And it’s certainly not chance that is, so that leaves us with…..you got it, GOD.

Do you think god is up there with a pair of scissors cutting shapes into each individual flake?

The patterns in snow flakes are the result of the properties of water molecules, not intelligence or design.

Oh boy. That is a misunderstanding. No God is not using scissors to cut out all the snow flakes. The laws which govern the snow flake are designed by him and the properties of the water are designed by him….If the snow flake is complex, how do you account for it’s complexity?

Evolution by natural selection.

Spell out how the snow flake can evolve?

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

What hallmarks?

Even Richard Dawkins said that the universe APPEARS to be designed, but it’s NOT designed. Well if it has an appearance, then it has the HALLMARKS.

So, humans are responsible for flipping the retina of the eye around. Those sinful ********!

Yes, and what you said here is not an argument against it.

Still, it seems like a designer as powerful as you claim god is would be able to create something that doesn't wear out. I mean, he created the universe for christ's sake and he can't create an eye without a blind spot or point the retina in the right direction?

Again, Adam was responsible for bringing death into the world by sin. And with that comes malfunctions with the body and the EYE.

Plus, AGAIN, even without me using this argument, AGAIN, BAD DESIGN IS STILL DESIGN. You are dancing around the issue. Watch that bugs bunny video again.

Who created Satan?

This question is irrelevant simply because it’s like asking “who created hitler?” so what if God created Satan in other words, he did not create him to be evil, he created him with a free will and he used that will to DO evil.

This is not an argument to what I said, here is a recap to what I had said “Sort of like a computer, a computer is complex and is designed in a GOOD way, but then VIRUSES are designed by BAD people and put into computers, does that now make the computer no longer designed because someone designed a bad virus? Of course not!”

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

Jose_Fly

So now you have your god setting up a system of "justice" whereby people receive punishment that they do not deserve. That my friend, is the opposite of "just".

No, your twisting things. God is not doing justice to babies. The babies just happen to fall into the mix of things. Adam sinned, that brought death to babies. Babies are under the power of people who do wrong and that wrong effects the babies. God is not doing it to them, don’t blame him. Either people are doing it, or Satan is doing it.

But this god created Adam with these "responsibility for all mankind genes" and set up the system which operates according to the rule "one guy disobeys = curse activated = creation of diseases".

IOW, your god is still responsible.

No, God is not responsible, God gave free will to happen and responsibility, and Adam used his will and responsibility wrongly. Just like many people in the world they use there will and responsibility wrongly and lo and behold it effects other people who are under their power. Don’t blame God, blame the person who makes the wrong choices that effect people under them or near their circle of influence. You’re here talking about justice and all and yet you pervert the very thing you are trying to uphold by blaming someone who is not responsbible, namely God in this case. That is NOT justice by blaming someone who did not actually DO the wrong, but actually told us NOT to do wrong. And you call that justice? That is a perversion.

The only thing God is responsible for is giving FREE will. So in case you ask why would he give that then? Because he did not want robots, that’s why. Ya, he knew there would be a RISK in giving free will, but it’s worth it because it’s better than having boring robots around isn’t it?

A more apt analogy to your belief would be where, because the man committed rape, the entire earth would be afflicted with brain-rotting bacteria.

Wrong, you’re twisting it. The man committing rape would only effect the person he raped, well he would effect the persons parents and friends and the law enforcement as well in different ways. But it would not be with brain rotting bacteria. There are DIFFERENT responsibilities. Adam had one KIND of responsibility and therefore he would effect mankind differently then how a rapist would effect mankind. And not to mention we also have to bring into account the sphere of influence. Adam had a big sphere, the rapist has a small sphere, reaching only to those he rapes and their families and friends and those ones in law enforcement upon his case.

Your point is weak and fails.

Care to try again?

And that seems reasonable and "just" to you? Give one single man the responsibility for not only humanity as a whole, but the fate of everything in the universe?

Absolutely that seems reasonable to me. As for just, no it was not justice what Adam did, but that was him, blame him, not God.

It is reasonable for the following reasons

First by giving him this responsibility and power over the human race and the earth (not the universe as a whole or heaven itself) God is teaching him and us that when we sin, it is WORSE then what we think. Sin is not one of those things that “well, it’s not that bad, it’s just a fruit on a tree, perfectly harmless” that is most peoples attitude when they do wrong, and then they find out the hard way it really was bad what they did, and not just bad, REALLY BAD. So God gives this responsibility to show us how bad our sins really are and how they affect him and other people and other things.

Secondly it’s reasonable since he gave FREE WILL. Free will can easily ESSERT power or responsibility over people even if God does NOT give that power to them freely. Adam sinned and then had babies. So he asserted to pass his infected genes down the line. God did not stop him since God gave free will, and God did not stop him AGAINST his free will either because God was trying to work with him and teach him that he was wrong and WHY he was. It’s sad that people have to learn the HARD way. When all along they could have just TRUSTED GOD from scratch and that save them all a big head pain and safe others the big head pain as well.

Thirdly it’s reasonable because it shows God is willing to give us a MEASURE of TRUST, what relationship would be good if it was not based on TRUST BOTH WAYS. God does not just want OUR trust, he also gives us HIS TRUST. Of course, that would be fair, would it not? Of course it would. If God asks for our trust it would be hypocritical of him if he did not give us his trust as well. So he gives us a measure of trust and that means he is giving us a measure of responsibility and freedom. We can break that trust though, like Adam did, and that is why God kicked him out of the garden. What, would you rather God smother you? Always looking over your shoulder like a mean distrusting manager on a power trip? Come on, he is not like that. But I gauss apparently you would like that would you? Strange.

Fourthly it’s reasonable because by allowing this suffering God will also see who will remain faithful to him through suffering. After all, who wants to keep a relationship with someone who is not faithful, right? Got to weed those ones out.

So yea, it makes perfect sense and it is very reasonable.

Jollybear · May 18, 2010

The world he created. Wonderful.

No, the evil part of this world is not what God created, mankind and the devil doing wrong is what created this messed up world. God allows babies to die to spar them from growing up in it. But God does not MAKE them die.

So where are these guys? I'd love to talk to them.

That’s a stupid question, they are in heaven, and they won’t come back here, let alone come to you personally and have a sit down talk while having coffee. Come on now.

Personally one of them came back though and talked to Jesus, it’s recorded in the New Testament. Although this one certainly won’t come back and talk to every single person, they also got a life to live too you know. And they have other more important assignments given them.

Oh I guarantee you I could easily come up with a better system of justice that what you're describing.

Oh yea, ok, tell me and spell it all out for me, if you were God how would you do things differently? After you tell me, be prepared because I am going to ask more questions to whatever you say. I am ready, shoot. I can’t wait to hear this, this should be good, oh boy.

And where did this "curse" come from?

Where does the curse come from? The curse is that which does DAMAGE to God’s design. It’s like that virus in the computer. Sin causes the damage. That is where it comes from, SIN. Breaking God’s laws.

LOL! Nice try, but I'm not talking about parents with diseases who ignore the risks and have kids. I'm talking about healthy, normal parents who have kids who are afflicted with terrible diseases.

Again it’s the same thing, because those parents of those good healthy parents who had a child, they had the disease and passed it down. And you trace it all the way back and bang we run into Adam and Eve again, they passed it all down, they sinned.

You can’t get away from it. So, address the argument.

So again, if I came to you and said, "Your grandfather stole $5 from me 40 years ago, and as a punishment I'm cutting off the right hand of all his descendants", you answer would be, "Yeah, that seems just"?

No that is not just and your twisting the issue again. God is not cutting of the hand of all the descendents of Adam, ADAM did that sort of speak. Blame him, NOT GOD. Sometimes blame the devil and not Adam. But never blame God. The only thing you can blame God for is giving free will, that’s all you can blame him for. But, that is not a bad thing in giving free will. If you think it is, come up with one good argument to why it is.

You seriously have no idea? A system where people are punished for something they had absolutely nothing to do with, and you ask "how is that not just"?

Bizarre.

Yes I am asking you how it’s unjust? How is God giving free will and then man using that will to do evil, which in turn effects other people unjustly, how is God unjust in allowing this?

Keep in mind too, he also sets up boundaries to which the devil cannot cross, and likewise mankind cannot cross either. If he did not set his hand against that force, mankind may have well been wiped out by now. It’s the hand of God holding back such destruction.

I am going to adress the article now that Evelyonian gave.

The First Cause, or Cosmological Argument, says that everything has a cause, and, since we supposedly can’t have an infinite series of causes stretching into the past, a god must be the first cause — an uncaused cause. This argument was described by Aristotle, and has at least four problems.

I am going to show that there are problems with their problems with the first cause argument.

The main problem of the First Cause Argument is the idea that every event has a cause.

It’s not a problem, every event like it or not has a cause. There is a reason for it.

As we discovered in the 20th century, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause.

Notice they said the word “possible”? This article was HONEST here, thank GOD! At least I did not have to deal with dishonesty in the article, what a relief. In other words the article does not KNOW there is NO cause at the quantum level. They assume no cause. Case shut.

An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability.

You can only predict MOST things with probability. Secondly they were just honest in admitting it’s “possible” now they ESSERT with more boldness there is no previous cause for each such event with the radioactive decay of the uranium atom. Notice they don’t back this up, they don’t provide data, or proof for this assertion. It’s baloney. Plus they were just after admitting through the word “possible” so there bolder assertion means little. They are just asserting based on an assumption they were after admitting. And they don’t provide proof for the assertion (there is no proof for it either).

The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have. However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. We now know that the universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of

uncertainty that cannot be bypassed.

Yea, and just because you’re not CERTAIN of this issue, by your own admittance once again through the word “uncertainty” that does not make you CERTAIN there is now a problem with the first cause argument. So far in this article, here is what is going on. They have a problem with the first cause argument only because they believe there is no cause at the quantum level, therefore based on their BELIEF or ASSUMPTION of no cause, there is a problem with the first cause argument. But the problem is, that is their BELIEF and it’s an irrational belief at that.

Creationists: Here's your chance

Veteran Member

Unbound

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey

Hey