Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

Since we are talking about a being who is able to create the universe, would you think we should be able to see him? The Bible says that no one can see the Creator and live to tell the story. This is why he had to use human representatives to communicate with mankind.



But we can! His designs are all around you. If you visit the Louvre in Paris and you get to see the Mona Lisa, are you in doubt as to who the artist was? Have you ever seen him? Do you have a photo of him? Have you ever spoken to him?

This is the Creator's artistry.....



Look closely....do you really think you are seeing creatures that came about by undirected chance?



And as long as you relegate him to that kind of imagery, you will never appreciate his existence until you are confronted with him. What will you have to say then? He did not create belief in unicorns and fairies....humans did that.

That just sounds like a convenient excuse. Why shouldn't we be able to see "him?"

If this god intervenes in human affairs, "he" should be detectable and/or measurable in some way.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Where, exactly, does it do that?

Page #1

 

[SkepticThinker]

Page #1

It doesn't seem to say what you think it does then.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It doesn't seem to say what you think it does then.

Right after it correctly states that the universe began in a specific creation event, was once entirely light, that Earth was once entirely water, then one great land mass and one great ocean... animal life began in the ocean and man came last.

The whole gist of Darwinism was to try to refute sudden appearances, leaps, gaps, with slow, sure, incremental changes.

Remind me which one the fossil record ended up supporting?

 

[metis]

The whole gist of Darwinism was to try to refute sudden appearances, leaps, gaps, with slow, sure, incremental changes.

You should be aware of the fact that we know tons more now about the evolutionary process than what Darwin knew one & a half centuries ago. That's evolution for ya!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right after it correctly states that the universe began in a specific creation event, was once entirely light, that Earth was once entirely water, then one great land mass and one great ocean... animal life began in the ocean and man came last.

The whole gist of Darwinism was to try to refute sudden appearances, leaps, gaps, with slow, sure, incremental changes.

Remind me which one the fossil record ended up supporting?

Genesis gets it wrong though, given what we now know. How do you reconcile that? Also, it doesn't tell us how anything actually happened beyond "God did it." It provides no other explanation other than "and it was so."

The fossil record supports evolution, hence the reason the theory of evolution is the prevailing scientific theory.

 

[Sapiens]

I am familiar with it, and I agree with it's implication.

Then we should be able to end the conversation here.

The final result is only reached by virtue of it being predetermined by intelligent design. The computer is given the phrase 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' from Dawkins before he went to lunch

Ah ... so you don't really agree, unless you are are permitted to insert an imaginary agency, deus ex machina, that is not part of the experimental design. Sneaky, sneaky!

What are the chances the computer would produce this result unguided?

Either you did not read or failed to understand the wiki pages, just as you fail to understand the ToE and insist that evolution is a random process. Neither the Weasel Program nor the ToE are random, they both select advantageous random mutations.

As the analogy, we know even without being given that information, that the phrase was pre-determined.

Of course the phrase was predetermined, the experiment was designed to demonstrate the idiocy of expecting completely random processes to produce a predetermined outcome, e.g., "monkeys typing War and Peace."

The key point though, is not the improbability of the phrase itself. Because it is no more improbable than any sequence of letters of the same length. right? That is to say - that any one sequence is highly improbable.

Correct (more or less, ignoring issues such as letter frequency in the language). Any and all sequences are highly unlikely without a selective process. But you are making a jump from a simple selective process to an intelligent guiding agency (with all the additional issues of that agency's origins ... the ugly regression issues raise their head and Occam wacks you down.)

The point is; that it is the unique result specific to that combination, in this case a coherent sentence, that elevates the probability of intelligent agency well above those even but very low odds of chance,

As Bob Marley used to say, "no, no, no, no, no" (get the syncopation right). Any predefined result is basically the same to the Weasel Program. What it is demonstrating is the unlikeliness of evolution being a random, non-selective process. This is not the case in the ToE, where the result is defined by a non-agency process described by the negative "pressure" in the niche volume.

That's why you don't believe the Monkey typed the page without some sort of guidance from ID, and that's why I don't believe nature unfolded into something that could contemplate it's own existence, without guidance towards that specific result from the get go.

No again. The monkey will never type the page because there is no guidance, because there is no agency, because there is no deity. The evolution of agency (which is all that religion is) was well explained previously.

No, I don't think anything can ultimately exist by chance.

Therein lies your problem, you have a presupposition, e.g., "nothing can ultimately exist by chance" that prevents your giving the ToE a fair shake. BTW: what about quantum mechanics? Does QM not shake the very roots of your presupposition?

But this is another aspect that you have not even contemplated. The religions of man....wildly variant and seemingly opposed in many respects, have the same author.....and it isn't the Creator.

If I were a quote miner I would now declare victory with the observation that, "Deeje says all religions are the same and none flow from a Creator." See how that works, I twist your words into something that you disagree with and then I use it to impeach you. But, it is a lie.

The Bible explains the reason why humans need to worship and how that need was hijacked by a pretender, bent on gaining worship for himself. Those religions do not dismiss the existence of the Creator, but are proof that he exists and that his word is true.

The Bible is not a history book, it proves nothing of any sort.

How can you hide a 40ft tree out in the middle of a cleared field on a sunny day? You can't......but if you have time up your sleeve, you can plant a forest of similar looking trees so that eventually it will be very hard to distinguish the original tree. It's still there but not easy to spot if you don't know what you're looking for.

If I were all powerful I'd just bend the light rays around it. No biggie, much simpler.

The human need to worship is unique to us.

Prove it!

Animals have no such need,

Humans are animals.

but humans have channeled that need into many concocted and superstitious beliefs that are seen in many different places and expressed in many different and sometimes bizarre ways...the existence of these religions is the result of the one planting the forest, not the Creator of the original 'tree'. If God exists, then his adversary exists too and everything the Bible explains makes perfect sense. Evolution explains nothing....means nothing...and robs humanity of all hope for a better future. Worshiping science is just another 'religion', except your god is "Natural Selection" credited with miraculous powers that have produced all life on this planet. How is your faceless, nameless god more believable than mine?

And if gods do not exist, neither do their adversaries, and you avoid the questions of where gods and adversaries come from. Natural selection is no more miraculous than say, gravity, or perhaps van der Waals forces.

Good questions, but again none of them suggest your monkey did it, wherever he came from!

No one (except you) ever suggested that the monkey did it. We were pointing out that the monkey was, most probably, innocent.

The fact that you needed to write this speaks volumes, Sapiens......are you afraid that people will see the value of my arguments and finally determine that evolution is an unsubstantiated fraud?

I have no fear of that what-so-ever. I write volumes to stay in practice for when it really counts ... which is not here. Just think of this as batting practice.

 

[Sapiens]

Are you assuming that all intelligent people must agree with what you believe? That is certainly the inference....but definitely not the case.

Not the case,, eh? Care to share your data? My understanding is that the more education (especiallyy science education), the greater the accomplishments, etc., the more likely that someone will have rejected your fairy tales and support the scientific rationality behind the ToE. Conversely, the less educated and accomplished, the greater the probability that they will have views similar to those that you espouse. Wiki notes:

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma). This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticizing creationism and intelligent design.

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."
​

Even 8% of people who self-identified as Jehovah's Witnesses in a survey supported the ToE, which is higher than the percentage of scientists who rejected the ToE.

Maybe not in real life, but you seem to use the phrase a lot here....why does someone have to be lying just because they don't accept science's story? There are no real facts, just supposition...so why not just say so?

Your lies are quote mining. That has nothing to do with belief or acceptance of "science's story." Quote mining is, plain and simple, misrepresentation and a form of lying, as I demonstrated above. I notice that you have yet to confess your sin and apologize.

Wow....you mean your ego is bruised? I thought it was too big for that. I am just an uneducated nobody...remember?

Concerning yourself, you said it, I did not. Concerning me, of course not, I love to be proved wrong, that's how I learn things, and learning is, for me, the objective.

Expressing a belief is not lying.

True enough, but quote mining is.

Backing up beliefs with logical reasoning is not lying.

But you're not presented any logical reasoning, and you are quote mining.

Presenting pictorial evidence in support of those beliefs is not lying.

Also true, as far as it goes, but quote mining is still lying.

Which is why your arguments often appear to be personal attacks.

They are not personal attacks, they are simple statement of established fact: you quote mine, thus you lie. It is so clear that you have not even bothered to dispute the charge.

It does nothing for your position....it just makes you look like an arrogant jerk.....I know that you are not, but if frustration about the arguments leads you there, perhaps a different approach might be better?

Nah, I save those approaches for honest people who take responsibility for what they claim and who do not lie, or who at least apologize for doing so when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

The very fact that you have to appeal to such sources betrays the fact that you actually believe them. Isn't that called justification? Attack is not the best defense in an argument.

You can argue that with the authorities cited. I rest my case (in that area) on their opinions.

Good reasoning ability trumps bullying tactics any day.

Your response to good reasoning was to lie.

Its what Jesus used. It goes into the mind but is processed by the heart....the heart is where motivation comes from. We humans are not just walking pieces of meat. We are so much more than that...the product of a much higher power, with vastly superior intellect.....you just haven't made his acquaintance yet.

Yeah, Jesus made you lie.

You can believe that if you like. Its his best tactic ever....."I don't exist and neither does the Creator".

Cogito ergo sum. I can't say the same for your invisible friend.

Can science explain spirituality as easily as it explains life just spontaneously popping into existence?

Yes, it was covered earlier in this thread, remember the discussion of the rustling bush and agency?

Oh, I forgot...it can't do that either.

You do seem forgetful, asked and answered.

ah.. so now you default back to the monkey typing the page, until you can answer exactly who, how and when it was done for him

No, you keep pounding a dead straw-man.

And by that same rationale, when a magician correctly selects the card you put back in the pack, the most logical answer is to assume blind luck, until you can answer exactly how the trick was done!

No, prestidigitation is non-random, so is natural selection.

I could make a fortune off you!

Then why don't you do so? You don't because your claim is clearly bogus.

Again we already established, that we can deduce intelligent agency, without knowing any more about the intelligent agent.

You have made that claim but not that proof.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

your assumptions....One is that there is one creator-god

So, you don't really agree with your wife, about her Bible-based belief regarding there being one God, then, right?

"One creator-God", as opposed to several? Certainly. The fact that the same building blocks of life -- DNA, with all its proteins and amino acids -- are found in every organism, is evidence that they all came from one Creator.

About there being another invisible intelligence working against God's purpose: clear evidence is given in Exodus 7, with the account of Moses' face-off with Jannes and Jambres in Pharaoh's court. The Bible really answers many of our questions, if we just open our mind and heart, and reason on what it tells us.

As one of the greatest scientific minds, Isaac Newton, stated, "I study the Bible daily." And his conclusion? "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever..."

(Have I just wasted my time?)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then we should be able to end the conversation here.
Ah ... so you don't really agree, unless you are are permitted to insert an imaginary agency, deus ex machina, that is not part of the experimental design. Sneaky, sneaky!
Either you did not read or failed to understand the wiki pages, just as you fail to understand the ToE and insist that evolution is a random process. Neither the Weasel Program nor the ToE are random, they both select advantageous random mutations.
Of course the phrase was predetermined, the experiment was designed to demonstrate the idiocy of expecting completely random processes to produce a predetermined outcome, e.g., "monkeys typing War and Peace."
Correct (more or less, ignoring issues such as letter frequency in the language). Any and all sequences are highly unlikely without a selective process. But you are making a jump from a simple selective process to an intelligent guiding agency (with all the additional issues of that agency's origins ... the ugly regression issues raise their head and Occam wacks you down.)
As Bob Marley used to say, "no, no, no, no, no" (get the syncopation right). Any predefined result is basically the same to the Weasel Program. What it is demonstrating is the unlikeliness of evolution being a random, non-selective process. This is not the case in the ToE, where the result is defined by a non-agency process described by the negative "pressure" in the niche volume.

No again. The monkey will never type the page because there is no guidance, because there is no agency, because there is no deity. The evolution of agency (which is all that religion is) was well explained previously.

Therein lies your problem, you have a presupposition, e.g., "nothing can ultimately exist by chance" that prevents your giving the ToE a fair shake. BTW: what about quantum mechanics? Does QM not shake the very roots of your presupposition?
If I were a quote miner I would now declare victory with the observation that, "Deeje says all religions are the same and none flow from a Creator." See how that works, I twist your words into something that you disagree with and then I use it to impeach you. But, it is a lie.
The Bible is not a history book, it proves nothing of any sort.
If I were all powerful I'd just bend the light rays around it. No biggie, much simpler.
Prove it!

Humans are animals.
And if gods do not exist, neither do their adversaries, and you avoid the questions of where gods and adversaries come from. Natural selection is no more miraculous than say, gravity, or perhaps van der Waals forces.

No one (except you) ever suggested that the monkey did it. We were pointing out that the monkey was, most probably, innocent.
I have no fear of that what-so-ever. I write volumes to stay in practice for when it really counts ... which is not here. Just think of this as batting practice.

The experiment was designed explicitly to produce the exact phrase 'ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL'

And that's what it did. No more and no less. If this 100% level of predetermination for the exact desired result, is an analogy for how the DNA of a human was come by, we have no argument.

We could do the same with the entire human genome, generate random sequences and select for the one that is closest to our 100% predetermined goal, and of course we'd be bound to get that result also.

Nothing whatsoever has been created, evolved, improved, developed... that did not already exist by creative input. Doing so is the rather more challenging part.


So If Dawkins does not believe that the entire design of a human was also predetermined and selected for from the outset, then by his and your own definition, the analogy is fatally flawed.

what about quantum mechanics? Does QM not shake the very roots of your presupposition?

quite the opposite, back in Darwin's day, we still perceived physical reality as the result of a handful of simple, immutable laws +lots of time and space and random interaction. And the ToE was a logical extension of this simplistic Victorian understanding.

Concepts of hidden mysterious guiding forces and specific instructions, detailing predetermined results - through how physical reality organizes itself, were still the realm of 'religious pseudoscience' back then.

Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism who bemoaned the difficultly in having these ideas accepted. Darwinism still survives today by virtue of it's ideological attachment for atheists being far stronger still.

 

[metis]

So, you don't really agree with your wife, about her Bible-based belief regarding there being one God, then, right?

I neither agree nor disagree as there's no objectively-derived evidence to believe as such. [see my signature statement at the bottom of this post to see my general approach]

However, with that being said, I do believe that religion in general does have a lot to offer, but the "my way or the highway" approach used by so many tends to historically have created massive amounts of hardship and undoubtedly many millions of deaths.

I can fully accept without a problem those have a strong belief in their religious conviction as long as they recognize that it is their belief and not a slam-dunk fact, plus that others have their own beliefs and that they and their beliefs should be respected.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It still doesn't say anything about the planet (rotating).

It only say the sun stop moving during battle, and didn't start moving until the battle ended.

Nowhere does it say anything about the earth spinning on its axis.

You are only trying to imply the earth rotate, because you have the benefit of science (astronomy).

The earliest person to proposed the heliocentric model (earth and other planets orbiting around the sun, was a 3rd century BCE Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos. But his proposed model didn't receive much attention, and was never popular. The part about heliocentric is lost, but Archimedes of the famous inventor Syracuse recorded or summarised the heliocentric model.

What is not lost in Aristarchus' work (On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon) that he was also able to calculate size of the earth, as well as the distances of the Earth from the sun and from the moon, based on ratios.

The first person to state the Earth was rotating was another Greek astronomer, earlier than Aristarchus, from the 4th century BCE - named Heraclides of Pontus.

The bible provided no such information about the earth or sun.

Interesting information, thanks!
Still, how the Scriptures word things, is not wrong.
You might find this interesting: Job 26:7.

Take care.

 

[Deeje]

LOL. When He walked and talked with Adam and Eve, there were no other humans to act as representatives, so ...

God communicated with his human creation in several ways....not just through human representatives. Angels materialised on occasion to deliver messages or to direct God's ancient servants. There were visions and dreams as well as direct communication to the consciousness of individuals. God is not limited. He can "walk" with humankind in a variety of ways.

Limited chance ... evolution is not totally random.

If I ask a bunch of people to pick out one red bean from a can of white beans, the chances of getting red bean will become less and less likely as each red bean is removed from the can. Evolution is not perfectly random: it must go with what changes came before.

Undirected chance could not possibly be responsible for the extraordinary array of life forms on this planet. Each of them are unique and designed to live in the environment prepared for them.

How many beneficial flukes happen in real life? How much random chance can produce something as complex as a computer? The human brain is thousands of times more complex, yet it is "just accidental"? Really?

If you wanted to interact with your children, do you go to their pet and claim it is the same thing?

I am not aware that God has pets. Interaction with his human creation was personal until they became defective by their disobedience to one vital command. But rather than eliminate them from existence, he appointed a mediator to act as a spokesman for him. This one is identified as the "Word". He is the one who came to bring about reconciliation with God and mankind. We are all free to reject his efforts if that is our choice, but, according to the scriptures, there is only one road that leads to a future. The other road is a dead end. We choose which road we travel.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I do believe that religion in general does have a lot to offer, but the "my way or the highway" approach used by so many tends to historically have created massive amounts of hardship and undoubtedly many millions of deaths.

I agree! And people, based on evidence, should believe that their tenets are correct...'the "my way or the highway" approach', as you put it. But once they create "massive amounts of hardship and undoubtedly many millions of deaths" -- or any deaths or hardship -- on others, then immediately they should question those beliefs! (At least for Christians: our Saviour said to his followers, 'love your enemies and your brothers'. The Bible stresses how important this is!! -- 1 John 3:10-16. (If the God of the Bible, is essentially the Creator of all, showing concern for everyone makes sense!)

People judge themselves, by their actions. But it must be said, most are influenced by their leaders, religious and secular. These ones carry a heavier accountability.

So, you can see the truthfulness of 1 John 5:19, Revelation 12:9 and John 12:30, in stating and implying the Devil is controlling this world.

Have a good day, my cousin.

 

[Deeje]

I neither agree nor disagree as there's no objectively-derived evidence to believe as such. [see my signature statement at the bottom of this post to see my general approach]

Do you think that God deliberately hides himself metis?
Do you think that we are here for no reason? If you see purpose to our existence, does it not speak to you of a purposer? Can all this life be accidental and without a reason for being?

WHowever, with that being said, I do believe that religion in general does have a lot to offer, but the "my way or the highway" approach used by so many tends to historically have created massive amounts of hardship and undoubtedly many millions of deaths.

It makes any thinking person cringe to contemplate how much suffering and loss of life has resulted from religious beliefs carried out in violent acts.

And yet the Creator has always been the same...he has always asked humans to obey his directives. Only when they disobey him, do they have problems. Imagine what kind of world we could have if everyone followed the "law of love" promoted by Jesus Christ. The Golden Rule, if implemented by every human could make the world an amazing place.....but why can't we do it?

If God doesn't take the "my way or the highway" position, then nothing in this world would change. That of course does not give humans the same prerogative. God allows all of us to exercise our free will. He will never force us to worship him....it has to be our choice, from a willing heart, out of love, never out of fear, or mere duty. He knows who genuinely loves him, and he is choosing citizens for his kingdom based on that criteria.

I can fully accept without a problem those have a strong belief in their religious conviction as long as they recognize that it is their belief and not a slam-dunk fact, plus that others have their own beliefs and that they and their beliefs should be respected.

Having a strong faith is a requirement, but belief isn't something that is ever imposed or forced....it is offered, just as Jesus did. He never chased people or forced his message on them. He merely stated his message and allowed people to choose for themselves.
Like the prophets sent to his people in past times, the message was delivered often to give indecisive ones opportunity to change their minds.

Those who chose a different path were permitted to go on their way....even to the point of being instrumental in his murder.

James 1:5-8 tells us we need to make a decision......
"5 So if any one of you is lacking in wisdom, let him keep asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching, and it will be given him. 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about. 7 In fact, that man should not expect to receive anything from Jehovah; 8 he is an indecisive man, unsteady in all his ways."

 

[gnostic]

Still, how the Scriptures word things, is not wrong.

You might find this interesting: Job 26:7.

That's rather vague...and shouldn't be read alone as a single verse.

The description in Job 26 are largely poetic and metaphoric, cannot be read literal. And when comparing the verses to nature, often wrong.

And none of them are scientific. None of the verses EXPLAINS the HOWs.

In science, it is always explains how - as clear, as precise and as thorough as possibly can. Science explains how it works - the mechanism.

If you look at the modern theories in astronomy about the stars, including the sun, it is not simply just descriptive, like the sun provide sunlight and heat, it explain how the stars produce heat, energies and light.

When science describe the night and day, it goes in great detail about the earth's mass, how it tilt as the earth rotates on its axis, the distance from the sun.

Everything is about the how in science.

The bible never explains how, and in Job 26, and God's reply and challenge to Job in chapters 38 to 41, none of the verses explains how. Job 38 to 41 showed God bragging about his enormous powers, but a lot of them are too vague or simply wrong, and they never explain how any of them work.

For instance, Job 38:22

22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,

What are these "storehouses"?

And verse 22 never once explains how snow or hail are formed.

There are no storehouses. The author of Job, or God in the narrative, never provide answers or explanations.

If you want explanations about the snow or hail, would you (A) just read Job, to find real answer, or (B) would you seek teachers, researchers or professionals at the meteorology to find real scientific answers?

Just as there are no "doors" or "gates" to the seas, to stop the waves (38:8-11), and no stars or planets "singing" out in joy (38:7).

If I want answer about life of humans, animals or plants, I would seek those who have both education and experiences in those fields, not from the bible or any other scripture.

If I want to learn about planets, stars or galaxies, then I would seek them from astronomers, not from scriptures or from local clergymen.

There are clear distinctions between science and religions (or theology), and clearly you can't learn much from scriptures.

A scripture, like the bible, cannot give instructions on how to built homes, roads or bridges, cannot teach you how fit plumbings to buildings, or layout electrical cables. The bible don't teach you how to farm land or how to irrigate. Nor can the bible tell you how to make the simple wheels for wagons or chariots, let alone design and construct the modern motor vehicles.

All of the above come centuries and millennia from man's knowledge, creativity, ingenuity, common sense, hard work, testings, trials and errors; all of these trades and professions that don't involve the bible and other scriptures.

 

[Deeje]

Then give us a detailed account of why your god would exist in the first place, which organisms he designed and created, how he did it and when he created the different organisms. Just so that we know exactly what it is we are supposed to believe.

The Bible reveals "who" God is and what his expectations and requirements are. It does not reveal "what" God is, other than to call him "the Creator" and to identify him as a spirit, meaning that he has no form visible to man.
As the one who is responsible for our existence, he has a right, as Universal Sovereign to expect obedience to his laws. This is his earth....we are just the tenants. Bad tenants will be served an eviction notice. Science in the hands of greedy men has created many bad tenants. (Revelation 11:18)

The Creator does not demand that you believe in him, nor does he force people to worship him. He doesn't have to. He is scanning human hearts to see who has the necessary qualifications to be accepted as citizens of his incoming kingdom. By our words and actions we either qualify or disqualify ourselves.

You see, it would appear that you theists don't know what you are talking about since you can't even agree among yourselves what to believe and then you expect us to take you seriously.

That depends on who "yourselves" are. Like evolutionists there are differing points of view on how and what took place and when.
I am not a YEC proponent because the earth itself reveals its age. I am not sure that it is an accurate thing to guess how old the earth is, but suffice it to say, it is way older than 6,000 the years that YEC gives it. Living things on this planet, long extinct also tell an ancient story. The Bible allows for that....but many want to stick to the 7/24 hour "days". I do not support that idea.

We know enough to appreciate that purpose needs a purposer and that programs need a programmer. The things in creation demonstrate both, so it is you evolutionists who go by what "appears" to be true, rather than what is right under your noses.

It is possible to be completely blind even though you have fully functioning vision. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

 

[Deeje]

That's rather vague...and shouldn't be read alone as a single verse.

That statement in Job 26:7 reveals that the earth "hangs upon nothing". How could Job know what only later astronomers could see?
The earth, in ancient times, was thought to be suspended on a giant turtle traveling across the heavens.

The Bible proved to be correct....it does indeed "hang upon nothing" but there is no way at that time for an earth bound human to know that.

Isaiah 40:22 tells us that the earth is a circle, but the word in Hebrew can mean a sphere. People in ancient times believed that the earth was flat.

In science, it is always explains how - as clear, as precise and as thorough as possibly can. Science explains how it works - the mechanism.

If you look at the modern theories in astronomy about the stars, including the sun, it is not simply just descriptive, like the sun provide sunlight and heat, it explain how the stars produce heat, energies and light.

When science describe the night and day, it goes in great detail about the earth's mass, how it tilt as the earth rotates on its axis, the distance from the sun.

Everything is about the how in science.[/quot]

Who invented science? Who gave scientists something to study and a mental capacity for searching out such knowledge?
You think our intellect and capacity for learning is "just accidental"?

The bible never explains how, and in Job 26, and God's reply and challenge to Job in chapters 38 to 41, none of the verses explains how. Job 38 to 41 showed God bragging about his enormous powers, but a lot of them are too vague or simply wrong, and they never explain how any of them work.

For instance, Job 38:22

What are these "storehouses"?

And verse 22 never once explains how snow or hail are formed.

There are no storehouses. The author of Job, or God in the narrative, never provide answers or explanations.

You are right, there is a lot of figurative language in Job, but use your imagination.....what are the storehouses? They are the clouds where all rain, hail and snow come from. It never rains or hails or snows unless there are clouds. Is that too hard to understand? What is amazing is the volume of water that can be suspended in these clouds. Any wonder that Job called them "storehouses".

If you want explanations about the snow or hail, would you (A) just read Job, to find real answer, or (B) would you seek teachers, researchers or professionals at the meteorology to find real scientific answers?

Those teachers would be those who study God's handiwork to provide the answers to those questions. Humans seek knowledge because they are not fully governed by instinct. They have to teach their young for many years, unlike other living things, some of which can reproduce after 12 months of age or even younger.

Just as there are no "doors" or "gates" to the seas, to stop the waves (38:8-11), and no stars or planets "singing" out in joy (38:7).

If I want answer about life of humans, animals or plants, I would seek those who have both education and experiences in those fields, not from the bible or any other scripture.

Again, it is by using the faculties given to us by the Creator. We as a species have a thirst for knowledge...and we have the mental capacity to use that knowledge to benefit ourselves.....or even to destroy ourselves.

There are clear distinctions between science and religions (or theology), and clearly you can't learn much from scriptures.

I completely disagree...we can learn much from the scriptures that we can find nowhere else. It answers the questions that science cannot begin to address.

A scripture, like the bible, cannot give instructions on how to built homes, roads or bridges, cannot teach you how fit plumbings to buildings, or layout electrical cables. The bible don't teach you how to farm land or how to irrigate. Nor can the bible tell you how to make the simple wheels for wagons or chariots, let alone design and construct the modern motor vehicles.

All of the above come centuries and millennia from man's knowledge, creativity, ingenuity, common sense, hard work, testings, trials and errors; all of these trades and professions that don't involve the bible and other scriptures.

Who gave man the capacity to do that? You are giving credit to the wrong ones. If God had created us to be like all the other animals, then what houses would we be living in? What transportation would we be using? What food would we be cooking? What clothing would we be wearing?

You seem to close your eyes and your mind to a lot of things. Why?

 

[Deeje]

"Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence."
-Matt Dillahunty

"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen."
-The Apostle Paul.

 

[Deeje]

What does "spiritual" even mean?

The spiritual part of humanity is inborn. It is a part of the psyche that must be cultivated or like a muscle that gets no use, it will wither and die. Spiritual death is a sad and sorry state......it make people into empty vessels that make a lot of noise but are pretty much good for nothing in God's estimations.

That just sounds like a convenient excuse. Why shouldn't we be able to see "him?"

According to scripture, the Creator is a lifeform that cannot come into direct contact with a material beings. If this being created the millions of suns in the various galaxies in the universe, and we cannot look at our small sun directly without damage to ourselves, then what makes us think we should be able to see him and live to tell about the experience? He appoints other life forms to communicate with man for him.

If this god intervenes in human affairs, "he" should be detectable and/or measurable in some way.

Actually, God does not interfere in human affairs much at all. This is to demonstrate what happen when humankind think that they can do things better on their own. He is allowing us all enough rope to hang ourselves. The rope is manufactured by us though, not him.

Humans are pretty big on ego but incredibly short on forethought and intelligence a lot of the time. How many things have seemingly clever humans invented that seemed like a good idea at the time, only to find out decades later that it was a huge mistake that cannot now be undone?

How many weapons have they invented to slaughter one another, but they can find no way to make peace on this planet so that we can live without the threat of war and violance?

How much pollution will it take to kill of all life down here? At no other time in history has man possessed to means to destroy every living thing in existence. He seems to exhibit no thought past his own lifetime, leaving his grandchildren to clean up his mess.....how clever is he really?