Support NeoGAF

[jdogmoney]

http://artsandfaith.com/t100 Much better. I think you were doing American-only, though. No Coens, though?

Ctrl + F "Dogma"

...

List discredited.

Spoiler

 

[GhaleonQ]

Ctrl + F "Dogma"

...

List discredited.

Spoiler

*shakes fist* *nerd voice* Weeeell, if you can't appreciate Bresson's groundbreaking use of sound in adapting Bernanos' epistolary novel, you're probably Jay and/or Silent Bob.

DAMN YOU, JDOG.

 

[JGS]

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/448...origin-of-life-often-confused-with-evolution/

Here are three great videos that will explain to you what abiogensis is, how it could have happened, and why creationist arguments against it are wrong.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309104434.htm

“We have not made artificial life, and that is not our primary goal, but this is a huge milestone in that direction,” Church said in comments on the work before the event.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”


Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

How does science say this is impossible, precisely?

Hmm,

So we have a video, a computer model, & a synthetic creation that is clearly not life - 2 of whichl require monumental manmade efforts. That first guy is really funny but I'm not going to open up that can of worms except to say he has had some interesting conversations with creationists.

How is science proving it's possible again?

 

[JGS]

Dogma is one of my favorite films.

You probably wouldn't like it.

Oh, yeah, answers PLZ.

Dogma had no effect on me since I'm not Catholic and it wasn't funny.

Ditto for Passion of the Christ.

Besides I have an uncanny ability to understand I'm watching a movie.

In fact, I accept all manners of abiogenesis "facts" in a movie along with the force, hyper drives, and setting phasers to stun.

 

[jdogmoney]

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/448...origin-of-life-often-confused-with-evolution/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309104434.htm


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Hmm,

So we have a video, a computer model, & a synthetic creation that is clearly not life - 2 of whichl require monumental manmade efforts. That first guy is really funny but I'm not going to open up that can of worms except to say he has had some interesting conversations with creationists.

How is science proving it's possible again?

I'm annoyed, but not at you directly, per se, so bear me out:

Science is proving it's possible via the method of PROVING IT'S POSSIBLE.

...

Deep breath.


If simulating early Earth conditions and then spontaneously getting RNA, which is the first step along the way to getting life, isn't good enough for you, what is?

I'm honestly having trouble thinking of a method science can use that will satisfy you, outside of inventing a time machine, going back to the dawn of life itself, and shoving your face under the putrescent waters of knowledge, to borrow a phrase.

 

[Mumei]

I'm annoyed, but not at you directly, per se, so bear me out:

Science is proving it's possible via the method of PROVING IT'S POSSIBLE.

...

Deep breath.


If simulating early Earth conditions and then spontaneously getting RNA, which is the first step along the way to getting life, isn't good enough for you, what is?

I'm honestly having trouble thinking of a method science can use that will satisfy you, outside of inventing a time machine, going back to the dawn of life itself, and shoving your face under the putrescent waters of knowledge, to borrow a phrase.

I think his use of the words "prove" or "proven" in reference to abiogenesis is key - he'll believe it when science "proves" it.

In other words, you can show him all the computer models, hypotheses, experiments, etc. - but as long as you haven't proven it, the evidence is going to be dismissed just like that. After all, the simulation is just a simulation - it doesn't prove anything.

And JGS, that's why I referenced the argument from personal incredulity - it doesn't matter how much evidence you see; you're probably going to continue to say, "But I can't believe that's possible!" You might say you don't believe it because science hasn't proven it, but that argument is pointless. Science does not prove things - it provides evidence, and the evidence points to the possibility of abiogenesis occurring. So, seeing as how your claim that science says that it is impossible is false, all that is left is your personal incredulity.

 

[BocoDragon]

9. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) (dir. Steven Spielberg)-It is my favorite movie of all time, but I had no idea Raiders of the Lost Ark was a Christian movie. I guess the Nazis claimed to be Christian.

IMO the best thing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did was reveal that Indiana Jones has always sought artifacts based on random myths... I always thought Indy 1 and 3 were "Judeo-Christian" in worldview, but since Indy now includes aliens, it's now revealed as an insane universe where every popular myth is true... Bigfoot exists, so do the men in black, and every religion is true....

It's not a Christian movie.

 

[EzLink]

I understand all of this, but was there a point in which you accepted Christ as Savior and asked him to forgive you of your sins? A turning point from unbelief to belief, if you will?

Of course there was. Figured it went without saying seeing as how that's the most obvious/central thing about salvation :lol

Yeah, I understand the theology and that "its not a religion, its a relationship!!"

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

I think the better question is, in a 'hypothetical' universe where there is no god, would there still be good and evil? Would a universal morality exist without the universal boss-man that is God?

Take that to the next level by asking yourself a very popular highschool-level philosophy question, what is evil really? Selfishness? Maliciousness? Where is the line drawn? And is evil universal and unwavering? Do the actions matter more than the reason for the actions? Or vice versa?

One thing I've never got, is even if the God of the Bible exists, why should what he says is evil and good be the deciding factor? Just because he created us he's allowed to say what we should or shouldn't do? Sorry, but that shit doesn't stand with me.

Just because your parents created you doesn't mean you have to listen to all their rules, nor should you accept them just because they say it's so. Even if he existed, and even if he was the God from the bible, there is no reason I should believe what he says is right or wrong just because he says it. Nobody goes around believing everything someone says and god should be held to the same parameters he himself would have created (if his existed could ever be proven).

 

[JGS]

One thing I've never got, is even if the God of the Bible exists, why should what he says is evil and good be the deciding factor? Just because he created us he's allowed to say what we should or shouldn't do? Sorry, but that shit doesn't stand with me.

Just because your parents created you doesn't mean you have to listen to all their rules, nor should you accept them just because they say it's so. Even if he existed, and even if he was the God from the bible, there is no reason I should believe what he says is right or wrong just because he says it. Nobody goes around believing everything someone says and god should be held to the same parameters he himself would have created (if his existed could ever be proven).

I expect my kids to do what I tell them and they get in trouble if they don't. This is whether they personally think it's right or wrong to do what I tell them to. Because I said so is definitely in force in my household. However, they can always ask why & I'll always have a reason. As they become adults, or my equal, they get whatever freedoms they want (They still owe me big time though:lol ). However, as long as I take care of them, they follow my rules regardless of their opinion.

Since no one is the equal to God of the Bible, nor has anyone given as much to us as God from the Bible, no one can usurp his right to tell us what to do or his right to tell us what is right or wrong. That's not a big deal since he doesn't ask us to do much anyway. Further, people do evil things against his will all the time, so he's not exactly a taskmaster.

Further, we are beholden to rules our entire lives. If we break a law, we face repercussions. If we work at a job for 40 years, we will never be higher than the head of the company or the other areas that set the rules. In many instance the employer does not seek the guidance of the employee when making the big decisions at least not in sales.

 

[JGS]

IMO the best thing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did was reveal that Indiana Jones has always sought artifacts based on random myths... I always thought Indy 1 and 3 were "Judeo-Christian" in worldview, but since Indy now includes aliens, it's now revealed as an insane universe where every popular myth is true... Bigfoot exists, so do the men in black, and every religion is true....

It's not a Christian movie.

Well, I'm not sure it matters to me whether a particular movie is religious themed. I've watched movies assuming the non-existence of God and enjoyed them tremendously- ditto for movies involving magic & mythologies (Although Clash of the Titans is looking like a pass for me now).

Raiders is incorrect regarding the abilities of the Ark (Except the look which they got perfectly), so it did nothing to bolster my faith. Ditto with Last Crusade. Raiders is my all time favorite because of the entertainment factor.

Crystal Skull may have allowed for equal opportunity beliefs (Although Temple of Doom did that too), but the story and the integration of aliens was dumb. I'll take a good story with a disagreement about beliefs over a bad story that agrees with my beliefs any day of the week.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

I expect my kids to do what I tell them and they get in trouble if they don't. This is whether they personally think it's right or wrong to do what I tell them to. Because I said so is definitely in force in my household. However, they can always ask why & I'll always have a reason. As they become adults, or my equal, they get whatever freedoms they want (They still owe me big time though:lol ). However, as long as I take care of them, they follow my rules regardless of their opinion.

Since no one is the equal to God of the Bible, nor has anyone given as much to us as God from the Bible, no one can usurp his right to tell us what to do or his right to tell us what is right or wrong. That's not a big deal since he doesn't ask us to do much anyway. Further, people do evil things against his will all the time, so he's not exactly a taskmaster.

Further, we are beholden to rules our entire lives. If we break a law, we face repercussions. If we work at a job for 40 years, we will never be higher than the head of the company or the other areas that set the rules. In many instance the employer does not seek the guidance of the employee when making the big decisions at least not in sales.

Giving up your whole life to worship him is asking A LOT. Some people do work at a company for 40 years and become the CEO, some people quit and become their own boss, and those same people can have more accomplishments than the ones that came before them.

Being authority does not mean you know best, nor does it mean I can't go out on my own and create my own well being.

EDIT - Bolded part: That's exactly my point, what gave him the right to decide good and evil. Being gay is evil, but being straight is good. Why did he get to come up with that, just because he made us. That doesn't give someone the right to take their freedom from them or for them to be allowed to punish you severely for their misconduct. If you tried to starve your children to death because they didn't do their homework , I promise you your children wouldn't be yours for much longer.

 

[methos75]

Giving up your whole life to worship him is asking A LOT. Some people do work at a company for 40 years and become the CEO, some people quit and become their own boss, and those same people can have more accomplishments than the ones that came before them.

Being authority does not mean you know best, nor does it mean I can't go out on my own and create my own well being.

EDIT - Bolded part: That's exactly my point, what gave him the right to decide good and evil. Being gay is evil, but being straight is good. Why did he get to come up with that, just because he made us. That doesn't give someone the right to take their freedom from them or for them to be allowed to punish you severely for their misconduct. If you tried to starve your children to death because they didn't do their homework , I promise you your children wouldn't be yours for much longer.

Well he is God, remember he not only created you if you believe in God but he is also your King and hold dominion over your soul and rather you go to heaven or hell both of which he also created. This really isn't the samething, as a parent a child will eventually leave the nest and if they so choose can disregard everything I have taught them, and maybe do well doing so. You never leave the nest so too speak as fas as God is concerned, since well everything is owned by him, and if you disreagard him you will be lloing forward to a shitty time in hell.

 

[jaxword]

Hypothetical question:

Say someone achieves, in their lifetime, all the requirements to get to Heaven under your religious beliefs (whichever they are).

And then they are, sadly, murdered.

Do they go to heaven?

 

[methos75]

Hypothetical question:

Say someone achieves, in their lifetime, all the requirements to get to Heaven under your religious beliefs (whichever they are).

And then they are, sadly, murdered.

Do they go to heaven?

Well in my belef system they would, but honestly this was a pretty common sense question really, under any belief system if they lived as their faith dicates they would go to whatever afterlife they believe in

 

[JGS]

Giving up your whole life to worship him is asking A LOT. Some people do work at a company for 40 years and become the CEO, some people quit and become their own boss, and those same people can have more accomplishments than the ones that came before them.

Being authority does not mean you know best, nor does it mean I can't go out on my own and create my own well being.

EDIT - Bolded part: That's exactly my point, what gave him the right to decide good and evil. Being gay is evil, but being straight is good. Why did he get to come up with that, just because he made us. That doesn't give someone the right to take their freedom from them or for them to be allowed to punish you severely for their misconduct. If you tried to starve your children to death because they didn't do their homework , I promise you your children wouldn't be yours for much longer.

You would have to define giving up your life for him.

What exactly do you think is being missed? I'm pretty sure I'm capable of doing most things others are assuming they're legal to begin with.

As far as the bolded part. Who gives you the right to decide what isn't good or evil?. You. In other words, if you disagree with God, you do the evil action anyway. So it's hardly a case of God shoving his statutes down your throat and there are no lightening bolts from the sky yet. Some people just like the stabndards set and decide they'll follow them. Free will is a good thing and one of the greater gifts God from the Bible gives people.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Well he is God, remember he not only created you if you believe in God but he is also your King and hold dominion over your soul and rather you go to heaven or hell both of which he also created. This really isn't the samething, as a parent a child will eventually leave the nest and if they so choose can disregard everything I have taught them, and maybe do well doing so. You never leave the nest so too speak as fas as God is concerned, since well everything is owned by him, and if you disreagard him you will be lloing forward to a shitty time in hell.

That's my whole point man. Just because he created it, doesn't mean he owns it or us.

 

[methos75]

That's my whole point man. Just because he created it, doesn't mean he owns it or us.

I think yoiur looking at it the wrong way, he is GOD, he is the Alpha and thge Omega, master of all, King of the Universe and all that Jazz. Hell if the President can make up laws and tell me what to do or I am Punished, pretty sure the Master of all Creation can do so on a vaster plain. Just saying.

 

[methos75]

That's my whole point man. Just because he created it, doesn't mean he owns it or us.

And even that is pushing it, If you or I create something we own and control it, so....

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

You would have to define giving up your life for him.

What exactly do you think is being missed? I'm pretty sure I'm capable of doing most things others are assuming they're legal to begin with.

As far as the bolded part. Who gives you the right to decide what isn't good or evil?. You. In other words, if you disagree with God, you do the evil action anyway. So it's hardly a case of God shoving his statutes down your throat and there are no lightening bolts from the sky yet. Some people just like the stabndards set and decide they'll follow them. Free will is a good thing and one of the greater gifts God from the Bible gives people.

It's like giving a thirsty man water but telling him he can only drink on every other day because otherwise he'll be angry with him and take the water away.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

DeusTrinitas, are you a good person? Would you say accepting Christ has fundemantally changed you?

I define goodness in terms of obedience to God. I try to obey what God has set forth in the Bible to the best of my ability.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

And even that is pushing it, If you or I create something we own and control it, so....

Not always. Children is something I already used, you don't own your children, and are we not the children of god?

I think yoiur looking at it the wrong way, he is GOD, he is the Alpha and thge Omega, master of all, King of the Universe and all that Jazz. Hell if the President can make up laws and tell me what to do or I am Punished, pretty sure the Master of all Creation can do so on a vaster plain. Just saying.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. There are checks and balances so that the president will not be come all powerful, but no such checks and balances for this guy that I've never met that claims to have created it all. Another thing, if we die and meet this person, how am i to know he is who he says he is? Maybe he killed the original creator and gave us all the run around because we are too stupid to know better.

my whole point is, if someone with supernatural powers said he was creator of all and showed you some of his powers and then told you to do what he said, why would you have any obligation to him anyway? Just because he creates something does not give him dominion of that creation.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I think where we stand here is a different view on humanity in general. I don't think humanity is truly good nor are they truly evil. I think most people fall within a mixture of the two.

What makes you feel that humanity is evil?

Well, the prevalence of crime would be an experiential example, but most of all it is biblical. I believe that the Bible teaches that all men are, by their very natures, evil beings as a result of the original Fall.

Here's the Wikipedia entry for total depravity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity. It includes passages of biblical support.

 

[methos75]

Not always. Children is something I already used, you don't own your children, and are we not the children of god?

I own my kid, at least for 10 more years LOL

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I think the better question is, in a 'hypothetical' universe where there is no god, would there still be good and evil? Would a universal morality exist without the universal boss-man that is God?

Take that to the next level by asking yourself a very popular highschool-level philosophy question, what is evil really? Selfishness? Maliciousness? Where is the line drawn? And is evil universal and unwavering? Do the actions matter more than the reason for the actions? Or vice versa?

The problem is that this is a "what if?" scenario that isn't really worth persuing for someone who believes that God created morality. The only way to answer that is to say, "No, there would be no universal morality without God."

I define evil the way the Bible defines it: a sin against God.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Why not?

Well, the simple answer is because the Bible says that God created man from the dust of the earth. Going further with that theologically, I would also argue that presenting man as merely an evolved primate does disservice to the understanding that God made man uniquely in His image.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

I own my kid, at least for 10 more years LOL

You believe that, and that doesn't make something true.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

The problem is that this is a "what if?" scenario that isn't really worth persuing for someone who believes that God created morality. The only way to answer that is to say, "No, there would be no universal morality without God."

I define evil the way the Bible defines it: a sin against God.

Thank you. It's not that what god says is actually good or evil, it's just that god doesn't like to see gay people getting it on. Isn't god's universal morality just his own perception of right and wrong and does that not still make it a nonuniversal morality because his subjects are supposedly granted with the free will he imbued in us?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Show me a society in which selfishness is the modus operandi. You won't find one, because societies rely on at least a basic form of cooperation—they cannot develop and persist without it.

Cooperation is a widely observed phenomenon in countless forms of life, not just humans. The reason is simple: natural selection favors certain behaviors that benefit groups, because the success of groups is shared by its constituents. That is to say, the better off the group, the better off most of the individuals within it, and thus the fitter they are to reproduce and ensure the survival of their offspring. That's the bare-bones explanation. If you want to get into the intricacies of human nature proper, we'll have to delve deeper into psychology. There things get more complicated.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right--that all societies, even animal ones, rely on some basic form of cooperation. Does that, by necessity, preclude God being the instigator and intentionally putting this cooperation instinct into all created beings?

 

[methos75]

You believe that, and that doesn't make something true.

I was being sarcastic LOL

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Of course there was. Figured it went without saying seeing as how that's the most obvious/central thing about salvation :lol

Yeah, I understand the theology and that "its not a religion, its a relationship!!"

Right, then I really don't know what to tell you, primarily because I don't understand how one who did accept Christ as Lord and Savior would subsequently leave the faith. Wouldn't that, by default, mean that you no longer believe what you once professed to believe?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Thank you. It's not that what god says is actually good or evil, it's just that god doesn't like to see gay people getting it on. Isn't god's universal morality just his own perception of right and wrong and does that not still make it a nonuniversal morality because his subjects are supposedly granted with the free will he imbued in us?

No, it is that what God says is actually good or evil. He defines morality. If he says it's good, it's good. If he says it's evil, it's evil. Whether or not the human beings he created agree with his precepts is irrelevant to whether or not certain actions are good or evil. The precepts are already there and all humans choose either to obey them or disobey them.

You assume that right and wrong can exist outside of God. I don't believe that they can. There is no ultimate standard of morality to which God holds himself. He is the standard.

 

[Wickerbasket]

No, it is that what God says is actually good or evil. He defines morality. If he says it's good, it's good. If he says it's evil, it's evil. Whether or not the human beings he created agree with his precepts is irrelevant to whether or not certain actions are good or evil. The precepts are already there and all humans choose either to obey them or disobey them.

You assume that right and wrong can exist outside of God. I don't believe that they can. There is no ultimate standard of morality to which God holds himself. He is the standard.

How do you know what your god believes to be good or evil? Do you trust a book written by men with their own personal bias? Or is it something else?

I really like this thread, it's interesting to see what beliefs people have and how they justify them.

 

[JGS]

It's like giving a thirsty man water but telling him he can only drink on every other day because otherwise he'll be angry with him and take the water away.

Worship always has been voluntary and always will be voluntary. You can't force faith.

This doesn't usually have a noticeable affect as most evil people in the free world are allowed the same perks as the most righteous, so I'm trying to figure out why the "dark side" is that much better or a life without rules in general. What restricts a religious person over a non-religious one?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

How do you know what your god believes to be good or evil? Do you trust a book written by men with their own personal bias? Or is it something else?

I really like this thread, it's interesting to see what beliefs people have and how they justify them.

I know what God believes to be good or evil by what the Bible says. The Bible was given by God as his Word and he divinely inspired its human authors to write it. The "Baptist Faith and Message" position on the Scriptures fully encapsulates my view:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

 

[Shanadeus]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right--that all societies, even animal ones, rely on some basic form of cooperation. Does that, by necessity, preclude God being the instigator and intentionally putting this cooperation instinct into all created beings?

Not at all, if you really want to - you can put God as the instigator for pretty much any gained trait in the evolutionary process. It's just that evolution works perfectly without any instigator.

 

[Dever]

I know what God believes to be good or evil by what the Bible says. The Bible was given by God as his Word and he divinely inspired its human authors to write it. The "Baptist Faith and Message" position on the Scriptures fully encapsulates my view:

How do you know the Bible to be God's word? Why do you believe that?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

How do you know the Bible to be God's word? Why do you believe that?

You're probably opening a huge can of epistemology with that one. We could probably spend days going through various epistemological theories.

If anyone is planning on saying that it's circular reasoning to say that the Bible is the Word of God because it says it's the Word of God, been there, done that. That discussion goes nowhere, I can assure you.

In an (epistemological) nutshell, either the Bible is God's Word or it isn't. I believe, by faith, that it is. Others do not believe it is.

 

[Chaplain]

How do you know the Bible to be God's word? Why do you believe that?

The main thing is prophecy. The Bible is the only Holy book that has thousands of prophecies (hundreds that have already come to pass). God did this to prove that He is the one who inspired the authors and to prove that He exists.

 

[JGS]

The main thing is prophecy. The Bible is the only Holy book that has thousands of prophecies that have already come to pass. God did this to prove that He is the one who inspired the authors.

Uh-Oh.

Spoiler

Of course I agree, but be prepared for a flood of alleged chronology error accusations & the Bible was written after the Bible was written stuff. Ironically, it's like clockwork.

 

[Chaplain]

Uh-Oh.

Spoiler

Of course I agree, but be prepared for a flood of alleged chronology error accusations & the Bible was written after the Bible was written stuff. Ironically, it's like clockwork.

No worries. Ravi Zacharias answers the questions that usually arise from such a claim:

Why the Bible? Ravi Zacharias at the University of Illinois

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Uh-Oh.

Of course I agree, but be prepared for a flood of alleged chronology error accusations & the Bible was written after the Bible was written stuff. Ironically, it's like clockwork.

You're right about this. The moment you mention prophecy and the fulfillment of prophecy, the floodgates of German higher criticism are immediately opened.

 

[Shanadeus]

The main thing is prophecy. The Bible is the only Holy book that has thousands of prophecies (hundreds that have already come to pass). God did this to prove that He is the one who inspired the authors and to prove that He exists.

Without getting into a retarded discussion about prohpecies and tha validity of them I must ask you if you are aware of that some Muslims claim precisily the same thing?

 

[methos75]

Without getting into a retarded discussion about prohpecies and tha validity of them I must ask you if you are aware of that some Muslims claim precisily the same thing?

Well why wouldn't they, much of the Bible, Koran, and Torah are the exact same

 

[Shanadeus]

Well why wouldn't they, much of the Bible, Koran, and Torah are the exact same

So all christians should convert to Islam then, as the Koran is the latest revision and is said to contain even more prophecies.

 

[EzLink]

Right, then I really don't know what to tell you, primarily because I don't understand how one who did accept Christ as Lord and Savior would subsequently leave the faith. Wouldn't that, by default, mean that you no longer believe what you once professed to believe?

Of course I don't currently believe what I used to believe about Christianity. I'm just trying to say that I was ONCE a Christian, so according to the Bible I'll still go to heaven even though I don't believe anymore

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Of course I don't currently believe what I used to believe about Christianity. I'm just trying to say that I was ONCE a Christian, so according to the Bible I'll still go to heaven even though I don't believe anymore

Well, let's say hypothetically that you were wrong about Christianity and that you still went to heaven after you died. How would that affect your view of God, considering some of the things you've said about your view of him earlier in this thread?

 

[JGS]

So all christians should convert to Islam then, as the Koran is the latest revision and is said to contain even more prophecies.

If that was a logical outcome, wouldn't we all be Mormons? Try telling that to Saudi Arabia.

 

[jdogmoney]

Well, the simple answer is because the Bible says that God created man from the dust of the earth. Going further with that theologically, I would also argue that presenting man as merely an evolved primate does disservice to the understanding that God made man uniquely in His image.

I think this is the main thing wrong here.

Man isn't "merely" a primate. Man is a primate. It's our taxonomic classification.

This isn't a bad thing. If anything, it's more impressive that we fought our way to the top of the food chain without claws, excessive strength, poison, camouflage, or anything except our big ol' brains and a propensity for running long distances. We are the Batman of the animal kingdom.

If simulating early Earth conditions and then spontaneously getting RNA, which is the first step along the way to getting life, isn't good enough for you, what is?

Good point, jdogmoney. I will provide a reasonable retort momentarily.

Well, that's quite kind of you, thank you!

Spoiler

I wouldn't mind that abject dismissal if you didn't just ignore me and move on to other posts. I'd like a response, even if it's "Who the hell are you to tell me about the origin of life?" or something...

 

[Mgoblue201]

Well, yeah, that's why I picked that one out. However, I thought I concede the point to an extent. There are still quite a few of us who are not YEC.

And I never said that there wasn't, so the point's irrelevant. The question was whether there are quite a few literal creationists. There are. There are also a lot of others. I do not find all of these different interpretations a virtue.

You haven't brought up a contradiction I haven't addressed to your dissatisfaction. Are you saying I'm supposed to make my own contradictions up now?

What are you talking about? You only ever addressed the bird problem, but I couldn't decode what you were trying to say. When I asked for clarification, I never received a response. You never addressed the "ground problem". You never addressed the issue of the later creation of heavenly bodies.

Of all places you could have went a creationist blog is about as useful for defining day as an atheist trying to tell a religious person what they believe. The word is is used throughout the Bibel to denote either a literal day or an era/period of time. Again why would a God who had no beginning or end all of a sudden need to feel pressured to finish the job by 6:00 evening time?

I'm not going to argue this anymore. It's basically an is/is not argument and I had to break one of those up with my kids so it's silly for me to engage in it.

Who cares about the source? Either it's right or it isn't. I will keep bringing it up until you answer the damned point. Are they right about the word yom never being used for a long period of time with definite ends? Are they right about the creation story laying out a definite day period (for instance, there was morning and evening, the second day)? For once in this debate, just answer these questions. You keep claiming you're right, but you won't say why your interpretation is better than theirs.

God wouldn't feel pressured to do anything in any length of time. You might as well say why he would wait billions of years. He could do anything in an instant. Therefore, you would need to explain why he would spend time doing anything. If a day is the same as a billion years, and a billion years are the same as a day to God, then both are irrelevant to him. The creationist would respond that six days was a symbolic act, which is at least an argument.

You are linking science with creation, something that at least starts miraculously. What do want me to say? That you know for a certainty that birds came after ALL land animals? Fine. But what does that have to do with creation? The simple answer is God created the bird first. However, I don't want to be flippant about it, so assume there was a misunderstanding from the writer. For some strange reason, I kept believing in God afterward.

I'm really not sure what this means. Birds didn't come after all land mammals. They evolved from reptiles, after land animals had been well established, and continued to evolve alongside all other creatures for the past 150 million years. Are you saying that the writer made a mistake?

I can't find the link to the manmade experiments proving how life got here without an intelligence guiding it. I'll look for the several links, but they are going to all be the same because they always are.

If you did not keep responding I would never have mentioned creation or abiogenesis again, yet this blow up is my fault? I apologize.

However, for the life of me I simply do not understand the big deal.

Does my view make me dangerous? If so, how?
Are you trying to help me?
Do you just like to argue?
Are you happier than me?
Do you think I am miserable in my delusions?

Most of these are rhetorical except for the first one.

The only part where intelligence gets involved is to simulate the conditions of early Earth. You scoffed at this notion but offered not a shred of an argument to explain why this is wrong. I'm giving you another chance to explain yourself.

Second, you began by saying that there was absolutely no proof for the natural origins of life. But there is. Now you're changing your argument to say it's based on a lot of hypotheticals. Well, yeah, that's what people have been trying to tell you. We really don't know for sure. The RNA world scenario, which has been gaining steam, might not even be the right scenario. However, science is an active process. It took 300 years after Newton to discover the cause of gravity. This incredulity is not helpful. It doesn't offer an argument. There are many reasons to think that we will find a correct theory. The reasons against it, frankly, are not very good.

The inquiry into the reason for debate is usually the last resort to appeal. It could be some primal urge of mine that I have to fulfill. Who cares?