Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Taking Every Thought Captive


Does Presuppositional Apologetics Use Circular Reasoning?

by Massimo Lorenzini

This article answers the common objection to presuppositional apologetics that it uses circular reasoning (e.g. using the Bible to prove the Bible). My response is that everyone uses circular reasoning. When a presuppositionalist begins with the Christian worldview to argue for the same, this is circular. When one uses circular reasoning, it is usually a weak argument. However, when we are talking about an ultimate intellectual criterion, a certain amount of circularity is unavoidable. Allow me to refer you to a somewhat lengthy quotation from Michael Kruger's article "The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics" which appeared in the Spring 2001 edition of The Master's Seminary Journal (available online at www.tms.edu):


To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A, then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C. But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G, as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on. Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one's conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point. Another example: Imagine someone asking you whether the meter stick in your house was actually a meter long. How would you demonstrate such a thing? You could take it to your next-door neighbor and compare it to his meter stick and say, "see, it's a meter." However, the next question is obvious, "How do we know your neighbor's meter stick is really a meter?" This process would go on infinitely unless there were an ultimate meter stick (which, if I am not mistaken, actually existed at one time and was measured by two fine lines marked on a bar of platinum-iridium allow). It is this ultimate meter stick that defines a meter. When asked how one knows whether the ultimate meter stick is a meter, the answer is obviously circular: The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter. This same thing is true for Scripture. The Bible does not just happen to be true (the meter stick in your house), rather it is the very criterion for truth (the ultimate meter stick) and therefore the final stopping point in intellectual justification.
So, when we begin with the Bible to defend the Bible, this is done with the conviction that the Word of God is the ultimate criterion for truth. When an evidentialist begins with rationalism (and also sometimes empiricism), he is also arguing in a circle, except he doesn't even acknowledge this fact. You see, evidentialism is circular because it starts with rationality. However, the evidentialist does not even bother to prove rationality, he simply presupposes it! So, when the evidentialist begins with rationality to prove the Bible, he is demonstrating that he believes (even if unconsciously) that rationality is his ultimate criterion for truth.

On the other hand, the presuppositionalist says that the Bible is self-authenticating. It has no higher authenticating or verifying authority. When a five-year old says to his daddy, "Why do I have to do what you say?" The father need not answer with anything other than, "Because I said so!" For the child, there is no higher authority. And for the Christian, or anyone else for that matter, there is no higher authority than the Word of God. In fact, God Himself cannot refer to an authority greater than Himself:


When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself (Hebrews 6:13, NIV).
Apologetics is a moral issue (volitional) more than an intellectual one. It has to do with repenting of autonomous use of reason and submitting one's thinking to God. One must repent not only of the content of what one believes, but also of the method by which one thinks. We must repent of what we think and how we think. At issue here is one's epistemology. What is the scale by which we weigh the facts? Is it God's scale or our own? If we use our own, the facts regarding God and ultimate truth will always be found wanting because of man's depraved nature. Careful study of the doctrine of total depravity will show that no amount of evidence given to a fallen, sinful, rebellious person will ever be sufficient to bring such a person to repentance and faith.

The unregenerate sinner has built up for himself a wall by which he shields himself from the truth of God. Evidential apologetics is wholly inadequate for the task of removing the bricks within the rebel's wall. Only a presuppositional approach to apologetics is able to effectively attack and dismantle the fortress of relativism, apathy, and cynicism that the sinner has erected in an effort to barricade himself from the truth.

However, I am not saying that even a presuppositional apologetic is sufficient to lead one to Christ. The approach of presuppositionalism is to apply a presuppositional apologetic to the heart and mind of the postmodernist, shake him from his relativistic slumbers, and thereby press upon him the demand of God's holy Law and the glorious hope of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But without the accompanying regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, even the most powerful defense of the faith is unavailing.

You see, presuppositional apologetics seeks to be consistent with biblical theology. The doctrine of human depravity alone is sufficient to show the inadequacy of evidential apologetics to bring a man to true repentance and faith in Christ. This fact has always been true and always will be true no matter what the prevailing worldview is, but is especially true when dealing with the unbelieving postmodernist.

So while a biblical anthropology alone bears out the fact that evidentialism is inadequate and inconsistent with Scripture, other key doctrines only drive the point home even more. In considering apologetic methods, one must also take into consideration the doctrines of general and special revelation, Theology proper, hamartiology, soteriology, and Christology. However, I cannot go into an explanation of how these doctrines relate to apologetics here.

One's theology is truly crucial in determining one's apologetic methodology. Your understanding of theology informs your epistemology. Epistemology really is the key to understanding apologetics. Man's thinking is not neutral; it's darkened, fallen, and hostile to God. Man, by nature, hates God and does all in his power to hide from Him. Therefore, man must repent of his autonomous, sinful thinking and rely upon God's revelation in order to come to a knowledge of the truth. Evidence, in itself, is not able to bring a sinful man to salvation or the truth. He will interpret all facts sinfully rather than submit to God's interpretation of those facts.

You can only know that your epistemology is correct if it squares with the divine standard inherent within man via the divine image (sensus divinitatis) and also witnessed by God's fingerprint in the whole of creation (general revelation). However, the greatest epistemological precision can be had only via Scripture (special revelation). Only as you are conscious of your epistemology and checking it by the divine standard of revelation, can you be in a position to judge truth claims. Otherwise, if you reject the divine standard, you have no assurance that your epistemology is correct and accurate and you are in no position to weigh any kind of truth claim. All becomes hopelessly meaningless and futile and rational thought itself is impossible.

If Christianity is true, and it is, then we must argue from the basis of it. We cannot grant a sinful, rebellious man neutral ground upon which to weigh the evidence for God since there is no such neutral ground. Autonomous use of reason is the problem not the solution! Think of it, autonomous human reasoning led to the fall of man in the garden. How could it ever possibly lead one to God? One can have epistemological autonomy only if he possesses intellectual self-sufficiency. Man is not intellectually self-sufficient anymore than he is existentially self-sufficient or independent. Rather man is a finite, dependent creature of God. He is dependent upon God for knowledge as much as he is for oxygen, food, and water for his existence (Acts 17:25).

This is God's world. There simply is no neutral ground to stand upon and evaluate the evidence for God. All creation is evidence! (Rom 1:18-20). We all live and move and have our being in God (Acts 17:28). Imagine all of God's creation is like a huge bubble. One cannot go outside of that bubble and examine it. There is no external, neutral ground to stand upon. There is no way to judge facts atomistically and neutrally. Facts only have their meaning by their place within the larger worldview. One's worldview determines the interpretation of facts. If one has a naturalistic worldview, facts will be interpreted in way that is consistent with that worldview. Presuppositionalism strikes at the foundation of those unbelieving worldviews. It calls the unbeliever to repent of his ungodly thinking and think God's thoughts after Him. We do not simply pile up evidence upon evidence and ask the unbeliever to weigh that evidence on his ungodly worldview scales. Rather, we call upon him to use God's worldview scales! This is a call to repentance.

To everyone else:

IGNORE THREAD.

Presuppositional apologetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presuppositional apologetics is a school of Christian apologetics, a field of Christian theology that attempts to (1) present a rational basis for the Christian faith, (2) defend the faith against objections, and (3) attack the perceived flaws of other worldviews. Presuppositional apologetics is especially concerned with the third aspect of this discipline, though it generally sees the trifold distinction as a difference in emphasis rather than as delineating three separate endeavors. Presuppositional apologetics developed in and is most commonly advocated within Reformed circles of Christianity.

The key discriminator of this school is that it maintains that the Christian apologist must assume the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible (that is, the Christian worldview) because there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian, and apart from such "presuppositions" one could not make sense of any human experience. In other words, presuppositionalists say that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions (presumably those of the non-Christian) in which God may or may not exist, and which leave human experience unintelligible.

Presuppositionalists contrast their approach with the other schools of Christian apologetics by describing them as assuming the world is intelligible apart from belief in the existence of God and then arguing exclusively on (purportedly) neutral grounds to support trusting the Christian Scriptures. Specifically, presuppositionalists describe Thomistic (also "Traditional" or "Classical" apologetics as concentrating on the first aspect of apologetics with its logical proofs for the existence of God. Aquinas himself insists that many crucial truths can only be known through scripture, and none of his arguments are intended to show the entire Christian picture; presuppositionalists criticize this "block house" method for failing to start at the level of the controlling beliefs of worldviews and implicitly allowing non-Christian assumptions from the start. Their goal is to argue that nonbelievers' assumptions require believing in some things about God, man and the world which nonbelievers claim they don't believe.

Evidentialist apologetics, on the other hand, focuses especially on the first two aspects of the discipline by offering various archaeological, historical, and scientific evidence to support both the probable existence of God and the truth of the Bible, and refute the major objections to the same. While presuppositionalists don't believe that classical arguments are good enough on the grounds that they don't show enough about God, they also think evidentialists simply haven't given a strong enough demonstration, and have started out by granting the assumption that human experience is intelligible without appeal to Scripture, thereby defeating their own cause. Evidentialists demur from this assessment, claiming that presuppositionalism amounts to fideism. The evidentialist's conclusion is that the Bible is most probably accurate about what it reports, and thus the whole of Biblical revelation follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

I would ignore this, but I'm astounded that someone is comparing Christianity to a form of measurement.

A metre is a metre long by definition. Christianity, by definition, is not true.

Of course, if this is the sort of arguments presuppositional apologetics use, I can see why people don't really heed their arguments.



That's like me saying "If I'm right, and I am, then we must all argue from this basic truth. Anything I say is right, is right."

Originally posted by Trickster
I would ignore this, but I'm astounded that someone is comparing Christianity to a form of measurement.

A metre is a metre long by definition. Christianity, by definition, is not true.

Of course, if this is the sort of arguments presuppositional apologetics use, I can see why people don't really heed their arguments.



That's like me saying "If I'm right, and I am, then we must all argue from this basic truth. Anything I say is right, is right."

They make an assumption and then twist logic and reason around that assumption. Instead of shying away from circular logic, they embrace it.

I think there is a good discussion here. It answers one begging question: why do some Christians use unintelligent arguments and refuse to see reason when it is shown to them.

The same reason people of all faiths do it: to feel invulnerable. If they can convince themselves they are right, then that's something they can hold above everybody who might disagree with something.

Whereas you or I could be shown or persuaded that we are wrong, the certainty that they are correct means they need never be proven wrong or change their minds.

Originally posted by Trickster
The same reason people of all faiths do it: to feel invulnerable. If they can convince themselves they are right, then that's something they can hold above everybody who might disagree with something.

Whereas you or I could be shown or persuaded that we are wrong, the certainty that they are correct means they need never be proven wrong or change their minds.


I am a religious person. However, the teachings of my religion are humanistic and do not require blind faith. Therefore, if tomorrow the basis of my faith where to be disproved, I would adjust my beliefs accordingly. The focus of my religion is on the human condition; so common arguments between Christianity and science do not have any real impact on my belief. The weakness of Presuppositional Apologetics is that they spend too much time defending their religion rather then living their religion.

I didn't intend for my comment to be seen as a generalisation of all religious people; rather I was saying that some people in all religions do have blind faith.

Originally posted by Trickster
I didn't intend for my comment to be seen as a generalisation on all religious people; rather I was saying that some people in all religions do have blind faith.

That I would agree with.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That I would agree with.

Of course every worldview must have an "ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point" like it is described in the article, that is called premise, but the problem is that YOU are the one assuming the premise.

Premises need to be assumed to be true by SOMEONE human mortal that is believeing that premise to be true.

It is you or someone else who choose by himself to believe in that, no external rational justification is possible beyond this.

Oh look, Christy is spamming the religious forum. Again. Posting some one else's words because he's too dumn to think of any himself. Again I think I may pass out from the shock of it.

And you just know Live didn't actually read the thing himself. All those hard words...

All this nonsense from rather absurd Christians- rather like their attempt to brand people as Philosophical naturalists- avoids the important point.

Yes, Science and rationalism makes an assumption about empirical and observable evidence. But the value of science and rationality has proven itself so absolutely and totally that trying to make out that the Bible is as good a starting point as Empiricism is completely ludicrous.

Look at the world we live in, JIA. A world of civilisation and technology. The medicines that sustain us. The cities we build. The technology that makes cars, planes and- rather more relevantly seeing as to where this debate is going on- electricity, computers, the internet and web forums possible, is ALL based upon the application of this rational scientific process, of deducing how the world works by observation and rigorous testing of the theories we make to explain these observed phenomena.

EVERYONE is linked into this process. You can take a Descartes-style sceptical view if you wish and say that it might all be illusiory, but no-one (least of all Descartes) really lives like that. We all use technology, we all eat food distributed by technology in a civilisation made possible by technology arguing in a form only made possible by technology, all made possible by the scientific method and its apllication towards understanding our world.

We are all innately, absolutely and totally bound up within it. And a damn good thing too. Few can deny the benefits civilisation and technlogy have brought to the world. And all of this is based upon the concepts that you find yourself confronted by in this forum- the need for reliable evidence behind ideas.

We apply this method to everything we see, every idea, every concept, to see whether it is right or wrong- normally somewhere between the two- and to see what is nonsense and what is not, what can be improved and what is worthless.

For some strange reason, religion holds that it should be exempt from such scrutiny, and should be accepted just because it says what it is. Well, the world does not work like that any more. Because every single other thing that we do in the world is subject to such scrutinty, people are looking at relgiion the same way- simply with the same rules that we look at everything else with.

As a result, some important parts of the religious establishment are entering into a proper debate on these issues. Applied philosophically, relgion is a valid concept.

But many- like you- are simply falling back to old dogma, and making riduculous threads like these ones here, clinging onto such outdated ideas as if they can still have value in a world that has gained and advanced so much by embracing a method which your approach falls foul of when it comes against it.

The Bible as the starting point for your reasoning has no value. People expect your arguments to hold to the same standards as normal standards of rational and logical behaviour, by such rules, you cannot use the Bible to validate the Bible. You must independantly value it as a source first, and you cannot.

Any other starting point is no better than one using the made up rules of fairy land as the basis of truth. The person you quote is wrong. If you want to demonstrate Christianity is true, then you must argue it from the position of rationality, because that is the only standard that counts.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All this nonsense from rather absurd Christians- rather like their attempt to brand people as Philosophical naturalists- avoids the important point.

Yes, Science and rationalism makes an assumption about empirical and observable evidence. But the value of science and rationality has proven itself so absolutely and totally that trying to make out that the Bible is as good a starting point as Empiricism is completely ludicrous.

Look at the world we live in, JIA. A world of civilisation and technology. The medicines that sustain us. The cities we build. The technology that makes cars, planes and- rather more relevantly seeing as to where this debate is going on- electricity, computers, the internet and web forums possible, is ALL based upon the application of this rational scientific process, of deducing how the world works by observation and rigorous testing of the theories we make to explain these observed phenomena.

EVERYONE is linked into this process. You can take a Descartes-style sceptical view if you wish and say that it might all be illusiory, but no-one (least of all Descartes) really lives like that. We all use technology, we all eat food distributed by technology in a civilisation made possible by technology arguing in a form only made possible by technology, all made possible by the scientific method and its apllication towards understanding our world.

We are all innately, absolutely and totally bound up within it. And a damn good thing too. Few can deny the benefits civilisation and technlogy have brought to the world. And all of this is based upon the concepts that you find yourself confronted by in this forum- the need for reliable evidence behind ideas.

We apply this method to everything we see, every idea, every concept, to see whether it is right or wrong- normally somewhere between the two- and to see what is nonsense and what is not, what can be improved and what is worthless.

For some strange reason, religion holds that it should be exempt from such scrutiny, and should be accepted just because it says what it is. Well, the world does not work like that any more. Because every single other thing that we do in the world is subject to such scrutinty, people are looking at relgiion the same way- simply with the same rules that we look at everything else with.

As a result, some important parts of the religious establishment are entering into a proper debate on these issues. Applied philosophically, relgion is a valid concept.

But many- like you- are simply falling back to old dogma, and making riduculous threads like these ones here, clinging onto such outdated ideas as if they can still have value in a world that has gained and advanced so much by embracing a method which your approach falls foul of thwn it comes against it.

The Bible as the starting point for your reasoning has no value. People expect your arguments to hold to the same standards as normal standards of rational and logical behaviour, by such rules, you cannot use the Bible to validate the Bible. You must independantly value it as a source first, and you cannot.

Any other starting point is no better than one using the made up rules of fairy land as the basis of truth. The person you quote is wrong. If you want to demonstrate Christianity is true, then you must argue it from the position of rationality, because that is the only standard that counts.

Why do you state that "religion" holds that it should be exempt from such scrutiny? Are you and Imperial Samura related? You two sound very much alike.

The Bible is repelete with scientific facts. In fact, the world around you is a testament to God's sublime/eminent intelligence, wisdom, and understanding. I would like to see the schematic diagram of the universe that you have created and sustain by your power, might, and wisdom (this challenge applies to every unbeliever on this forum as well. I don't want anyone to feel left out). Why...why don't scientists apply the same logic to the origin of the universe that they do to everything else? How can a college graduate with all those letters before and after his/her name come to the brilliant deduction and conclusion that this perfectly working universe just evolved? Take a look at this Saleen S7 Twin Turbo.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3783/saleens7twinturbopf6.png
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3512/saleens7twinturbo1kw2.png

As sophisticated as this exquisite machinery is, it is not remotely as involved, intricate, sophisticated and complex, as even one cell in the human body. Yet you believe that cells, matter, energy, all life, nature itself, the universe, and natural laws just sprang into existence by itself and for no reason.

I have no words in my extensive vocabulary to describe such utter, rank, and unmitigated foolishness. Yet your own scientists tell you that all things are a result of cause and effect. But when it comes to life you believe it just happened by itself and for no reason. That is as absurd as me affirming that the Saleen S7 in the above picture just found itself in my driveway (I don't have one I am just speaking hypothetically). That no intelligent designer was responsible.

(Let us just say for discussion sake that we could live for eons of years.)












Do you follow what I am saying?

This is what I experience as a Christian, except in this example I am the believer in the Intelligent Designer and you are the believer in evolution.

"Why do you state that "religion" holds that it should be exempt from such scrutiny?"

Simple, because it completely fails such scrutiny, as you prove here every day. It only survives by holding itself exempt. And if you did NOT exempt yourself, then your entire reason for opening this thread is wasted, because by accepting such scrutiny you must follow the rules, and therefore not use the Bible to justify itself.

-

"The Bible is repelete with scientific facts"

Err, lie... it is mostly full of conjecture and fabrication

-

"Yet you believe that cells, matter, energy, all life, nature itself, the universe, and natural laws just sprang into existence by itself and for no reason. "

Err, assumption, I never said that, though if it is so, so what?

-

"I have no words in my extensive vocabulary to describe such utter, rank, and unmitigated foolishness"

I certainly have no words to describe how idiotic that statement is. It boils down to "This cannot be possibly true because I don't like the idea'" From a rational view, your attempt to counter this idea is ludicrous. There is absolutely no reason why there be a reason behind it all, and absolutely no reason why your belief in God is a better reason for the cause of it all than it springing into existence. Again, this is by the rational view that these things must be judged by.

One important difference between Science and Religion is tha Science is purely concerned with the truth, not whether that truth is palatable or not.

-

I am not a 'belivever' in evolution, JIA. I am convinced by the established facts that it is so. Belief is not necessary in the face of evidence.

All of that great big post you just made... and that seemingly completely irrelevant disucssion about a car... does not do one single thing to repudiate my points, which is that the rational standard of science is the only one which is to be taken seriously in such debates. Hence, your circular reasoning in using the Bible to justify itself is invalid.

Two little things:

First, who created God, since he is so unbelievably complex how come he wasn't created?

Second, if it is provable that the car evolved (which it probably wouldn't be, since it didn't, unlike life on this planet) then it did evolve. Since provable things did happen. Get it? If you can prove that God exists I will believe you that he does, cause in that case he would exist. Thing is, you can't prove it, which is probably due to his lack of existance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"Why do you state that "religion" holds that it should be exempt from such scrutiny?"

Simple, because it completely fails such scrutiny, as you prove here every day. It only survives by holding itself exempt. And if you did NOT exempt yourself, then your entire reason for opening this thread is wasted, because by accepting such scrutiny you must follow the rules, and therefore not use the Bible to justify itself.

-

"The Bible is repelete with scientific facts"

Err, lie... it is mostly full of conjecture and fabrication

-

"Yet you believe that cells, matter, energy, all life, nature itself, the universe, and natural laws just sprang into existence by itself and for no reason. "

Err, assumption, I never said that, though if it is so, so what?

-

"I have no words in my extensive vocabulary to describe such utter, rank, and unmitigated foolishness"

I certainly have no words to describe how idiotic that statement is. It boils down to "This cannot be possibly true because I don't like the idea'" From a rational view, your attempt to counter this idea is ludicrous. There is absolutely no reason why there be a reason behind it all, and absolutely no reason why your belief in God is a better reason for the cause of it all than it springing into existence. Again, this is by the rational view that these things must be judged by.

One important difference between Science and Religion is tha Science is purely concerned with the truth, not whether that truth is palatable or not.

-

I am not a 'belivever' in evolution, JIA. I am convinced by the established facts that it is so. Belief is not necessary in the face of evidence.

All of that great big post you just made... and that seemingly completely irrelevant disucssion about a car... does not do one single thing to repudiate my points, which is that the rational standard of science is the only one which is to be taken seriously in such debates. Hence, your circular reasoning in using the Bible to justify itself is invalid.

Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.

Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.

Sometimes I wonder whom God is referring to in verses like these.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Take a look at this Saleen S7 Twin Turbo.

As sophisticated as this exquisite machinery is, it is not remotely as involved, intricate, sophisticated and complex, as even one cell in the human body. Yet you believe that cells, matter, energy, all life, nature itself, the universe, and natural laws just sprang into existence by itself and for no reason.


(Let us just say for discussion sake that we could live for eons of years.)










Thanks, you just made my day. ...... And yet they will still argue...

And when most people see this debate and they see you trying to answer an accusation that you use the Bible to justify the Bible, with quotes from the Bible (instead of, say, logical and reasoned argument) who do you think they will see as the fool?

Sonnet, I think you will find people will still argue because that allegory is gibberish.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.

Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.

Sometimes I wonder whom God is referring to in verses like these.

Not God, the writer of those proverbs...remember you people don't believe the bible is the exact word of God...you should really remember that, really....you should.

Also, you started to use logic and science (although falsely) and when someone points out how actual logic and science work you chicken out with that stupid book.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And when people see this debate and they see you trying to answer an accusation that you use the Bible to justify the Bible with quotes from the Bible (instead of, say, logical and reasoned argument) who do you think they will see as the fool?
Actually in the eyes of sinners, all Christians are seen as fools, but that is OK. Jesus was also mocked even while on the cross but he rose from the dead and together with Him we will LIVE in the Kingdom of God.

Trust me, people won't see his arguments in this thread as foolish because he is Christian. The arguments speak loudly for themselves, especially in the cowardly way he backed out of the debate and simply quoted more Bible text at me.

Originally posted by sonnet
Actually in the eyes of sinners, all Christians are seen as fools, but that is OK. Jesus was also mocked even while on the cross but he rose from the dead and together with Him we will LIVE in the Kingdom of God.

Look, even if some dude rose from the dead (and there's no evidence for that) it doesn't make anything he said more true..just doesn't.

And Christians are sinners themselves....by scripture...but most of you folks see yourself as enlightened people, besides being stupid fools that cling to outdated and idiotic beliefs.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1464/slrmclarendoorsupub4.jpg

Who out there in KMC forum land believes that this SLR McLaren evolved? Seriously, I want to gauge the responses.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Trust me, people won't see his arguments in this thread as foolish because he is Christian. The arguments speak loudly for themselves, especially in the cowardly way he backed out of the debate and simply quoted more Bible text at me.

And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God - Ephesians 3:19

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1464/slrmclarendoorsupub4.jpg

Who out there in KMC forum land believes that this SLR McLaren evolved? Seriously, I want to gauge the responses.

It was created by the scientific laws of the universe..so I guess, in a way you can say it evolved. It certainly came to existence by chance...there is no doubt about that.

Why are you engaging in this total irrelevancy, JIA? How can you possibly expect, in any way, a discussion about who built a car to have any relevance about the broader issues about what created the Universe and what caused life?

This thread is about science and logic. Science and logic will tell you what the car was built by people, and that life evolved.

Seriously, are you really this unable to fight your own corner? Shouldn't that tell you something about the weakness of your position?

Originally posted by sonnet
And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God - Ephesians 3:19

Another zealot with no powers of logic or reasonable response? Fine- but don't waste thread space with off-topic responses, thankyou.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why are you engaging in this total irrelevancy, JIA? How can you possibly expect, in any way, a discussion about who built a car to have any relevance about the broader issues about what created the Universe and what caused life?

This thread is about science and logic. Science and logic will tell you what the car was built by people, and that life evolved.

Seriously, are you really this unable to fight your own corner? Shouldn't that tell you something about the weakness of your position?

Response number one. Thank you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, even if some dude rose from the dead (and there's no evidence for that) it doesn't make anything he said more true..just doesn't.

And Christians are sinners themselves....by scripture...but most of you folks see yourself as enlightened people, besides being stupid fools that cling to outdated and idiotic beliefs.

Wow, now that realy shook my faith

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Response number one. Thank you.

Mine was response number one....

Originally posted by Bardock42
It was created by the scientific laws of the universe..so I guess, in a way you can say it evolved. It certainly came to existence by chance...there is no doubt about that.

Response number two or is this one? Thank you.

Originally posted by sonnet
Wow, now that realy shook my faith

Really? That's good, there's hope for you.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Response number one. Thank you.

Ok, let me put it this way- how is this related to the topic?

If it is not, then stop doing it.

Originally posted by sonnet
Wow, now that realy shook my faith

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why are you engaging in this total irrelevancy, JIA? How can you possibly expect, in any way, a discussion about who built a car to have any relevance about the broader issues about what created the Universe and what caused life?

This thread is about science and logic. Science and logic will tell you what the car was built by people, and that life evolved.

Seriously, are you really this unable to fight your own corner? Shouldn't that tell you something about the weakness of your position?

No, but it does tell me that you (and every other person who subscribes to the lie of evolution) is contradicting yourselves.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Another zealot with no powers of logic or reasonable response? Fine- but don't waste thread space with off-topic responses, thankyou.
Actually quoting the Bible is "sircular reasoning", so I am not off topic.

In whom the god(Satan) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God should shine unto them. - 2 Cor 4:4

This is why you cannot see the truth.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, but it does tell me that you (and every other person who subscribes to the lie of evolution) is contradicting yourselves.

How so?

Originally posted by sonnet
Thanks, you just made my day. ...... And yet they will still argue...

Your welcome.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your welcome.



What about his welcome?

Originally posted by sonnet
Actually quoting the Bible is "sircular reasoning", so I am not off topic.

In whom the god(Satan) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God should shine unto them. - 2 Cor 4:4

This is why you cannot see the truth.

Well, actually, the thread is about how using the Bible is not circular reasoning if you work off an entirely unscientific basis, which is true but entirely irrelevant because all reasonable arguing is done on a scientific basis.

I shall tell you right now, firing random bible quotes at people in here is not even vaguely on-topic, so please do not do it.

And JIA- maybe in the twisted logic in your head it does. But in reality it absolutely does not. Again, you are simply too scared to keep arguing your case because you know you have nothing.

Anyways, JIA, since you have two answers are you going to go somewhere with them? I mean..a response would be nice.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, actually, the thread is about how using the Bible is not circular reasoning if you work off an entirely unscientific basis, which is true but entirely irrelevant because all reasonable arguing is done on a scientific basis.

I shall tell you right now, firing random bible quotes at people in here is not even vaguely on-topic, so please do not do it.

And JIA- maybe in the twisted logic in your head it does. But in reality it absolutely does not. Again, you are simply too scared to keep arguing your case because you know you have nothing.

Why do you sound so angry and bitter? Dude if the inadequacies of your own religion

(yeah, that is what evo-lie-tion is because it takes preponderantely more faith to believe in it than it does to believe that God is the First Cause aka Creator)

fail to answer life's questions then maybe you should do some soul-searching introspection, instead of barking orders at people.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do you sound so angry and bitter? Dude if the inadequacies of your own religion (yeah, that is what evo-lie-tion is because it takes preponderantely more faith to believe in it than it does to believe that God is the First Cause aka Creator) fail to answer life's questions then maybe you should do some soul-searching introspection, instead of barking orders at people.

Actually evolution has a lot of evidence to it and was witnessed already. It exists. There is no doubt about it.

God has..no evidence towards it.

Evolution is not a Religion, it is a very likely theory.

Yes, again, exposing yourself as a liar there, JIA. Evolution is not a faith because it has a scientific basis.

The reason you don't like my posts is because they expose you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually evolution has a lot of evidence to it and was witnessed already. It exists. There is no doubt about it.

God has..no evidence towards it.

Evolution is not a Religion, it is a very likely theory.


There is not the slightest modicum of evidence that evolution exists. But you may persist in telling yourself that there is.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, actually, the thread is about how using the Bible is not circular reasoning if you work off an entirely unscientific basis, which is true but entirely irrelevant because all reasonable arguing is done on a scientific basis.

I shall tell you right now, firing random bible quotes at people in here is not even vaguely on-topic, so please do not do it.

And JIA- maybe in the twisted logic in your head it does. But in reality it absolutely does not. Again, you are simply too scared to keep arguing your case because you know you have nothing.

I do realise that,... because we as Christians do not see it as sircular reasoning because the Bible is our source of Knowledge of God and thus source of authority. As it was put inthe the intro, there is no higher source of authority. But the rest of the world sees it as sircular reasoning because they do not believe that we can use the Bible as our source, we have to find proof of God that falls favourately on the ears of the world.
The quotes I used tells us that God gives us the knowledge and proof we need through His Word, Jesus and His spirit and that Satan who is of this world is trying to blind us into believing that the only source of knowledge is through scientific reasoning. If people can quote scientific pages then surely I can quote my source of knowledge or are you being discriminitive.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is not the slightest modicum of evidence that evolution exists. But you may persist in telling yourself that there is.

There is, a lot even. If there is a God (and I doubt there is...but there might be) Evolution will still be true. It exists.

Originally posted by sonnet
I do realise that,... because we as Christians do not see it as sircular reasoning because the Bible is our source of Knowledge of God and thus source of authority. As it was put inthe the intro, there is no higher source of authority. But the rest of the world sees it as sircular reasoning because they do not believe that we can use the Bible as our source, we have to find proof of God that falls favourately on the ears of the world.
The quotes I used tells us that God gives us the knowledge and proof we need through His Word, Jesus and His spirit and that Satan who is of this world is trying to blind us into believing that the only source of knowledge is through scientific reasoning. If people can quote scientific pages then surely I can quote my source of knowledge or are you being discriminitive.

Look, if you have prove that the Bible is the word of God and an absolutely correct piece of literature you may use it. But you use it as that without providing evidence for its divinity.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8708/ss2bok1.gif

Which one evolved and which is a product of intelligent design?

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8783/360spydercx0.gif

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually evolution has a lot of evidence to it and was witnessed already. It exists. There is no doubt about it.


Evolution has been found to have a lot of falsefied "evidence" to it. It seems scientists are rather grasping around desperately to keep their little theory alive.

Originally posted by sonnet
Evolution has been found to have a lot of falsefied "evidence" to it. It seems scientists are rather grasping around desperately to keep their little theory alive.

Maybe, but it also has a lot of true evidence to it...how are you denying that? Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8708/ss2bok1.gif

Which one evolved and which is a product of intelligent design?

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8783/360spydercx0.gif

Hahaha, the sizes on that pic are hilarious..haha...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, if you have prove that the Bible is the word of God and an absolutely correct piece of literature you may use it. But you use it as that without providing evidence for its divinity.
O, and you have been apointed by whom to tell me what I can use and why? My authority to use the Bible comes from God and that is good enough for me.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8708/ss2bok1.gif

Which one evolved and which is a product of intelligent design?

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8783/360spydercx0.gif

The answer is both of them are products of intelligent design.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The answer is both of them are products of intelligent design.

Prove it!

Originally posted by sonnet
O, and you have been apointed by whom to tell me what I can use and why? My authority to use the Bible comes from God and that is good enough for me.

Okay, show me proof that your authority comes from God and I will accept it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe, but it also has a lot of true evidence to it...how are you denying that?



I prefer to stick with something that is absolutely true, not partly true. The only truth to the creation evolution theory is that God spoke the Word and the earth brought forth the different things as mentioned in the Bible. But scientists cannot believe that God made all of that happen, no it must have happened due to a VERY BIG EXPLOTION!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, show me proof that your authority comes from God and I will accept it.
Accept God first and you will not need my proof. The Bible says that we must FIRST seek the Kingdom of God.

Originally posted by sonnet
I prefer to stick with something that is absolutely true, not partly true. The only truth to the creation evolution theory is that God spoke the Word and the earth brought forth the different things as mentioned in the Bible. But scientists cannot believe that God made all of that happen, no it must have happened due to a VERY BIG EXPLOTION!!!

Okay...one word question...

Dinosaurs?

Originally posted by sonnet
Accept God first and you will not need my proof. The Bible says that we must FIRST seek the Kingdom of God.

You have no proof, I take it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have no proof, I take it?
The proof I have you cannot understand because you look at it with blinded eyes. Accept God so that you can see.

Originally posted by sonnet
The proof I have you cannot understand because you look at it with blinded eyes. Accept God so that you can see.

So I have to believe God exists to believe God exists? Well..I could have found that out myself.

But you know that planes fly because science is right and can give proof of that and not because I believe planes could fly, right?

Originally posted by sonnet
I do realise that,... because we as Christians do not see it as sircular reasoning because the Bible is our source of Knowledge of God and thus source of authority. As it was put inthe the intro, there is no higher source of authority. But the rest of the world sees it as sircular reasoning because they do not believe that we can use the Bible as our source, we have to find proof of God that falls favourately on the ears of the world.
The quotes I used tells us that God gives us the knowledge and proof we need through His Word, Jesus and His spirit and that Satan who is of this world is trying to blind us into believing that the only source of knowledge is through scientific reasoning. If people can quote scientific pages then surely I can quote my source of knowledge or are you being discriminitive.

Because your quote did not go towards establishing an argument, it was just a worthless accusation at me.

I'll refer you to my first post in this thread about why we should stick to scientific reasoning; to do otherwise is utter foolishness and will result in all your arguments being disregarded, and with damn good reason.

Our eyes are not blinded, Sonnet. Your so-called 'proof' is at fault. Your mentality is no better than that of the brainwashed cult adherent, and no more convincing.

JIA, if you think showing a picture of a car next to a stylished picture of some objects in space and think that that proves that science is wrong, ID is true and that using the Bible to prove the Bible is not circular reasoning, then you have long ago left the realm of any sense, logic or hope.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because your quote did not go towards establishing an argument, it was just a worthless accusation at me.

I'll refer you to my first post in this thread about why we should stick to scientific reasoning; to do otherwise is utter foolishness and will result in all your arguments being disregarded, and with damn good reason.

Our eyes are not blinded, Sonnet. Your so-called 'proof' is at fault. Your mentality is no better than that of the brainwashed cult adherent, and no more convincing.

JIA, if you think showing a picture of a car next to a stylished picture of some objects in space and think that that proves that science is wrong, ID is true and that using the Bible to prove the Bible is not circular reasoning, then you have long ago left the realm of any sense, logic or hope.
Why would you think that a quote from the Bible would accuse you specificaly? But the rest of your post are full of accusations towards me and my faith. You prefer scientific reasoning and the disregard of God and I do not hang on to every theory that science comes up with. So why am I the one who is brainwashed? Maybe you have been brainwashed (blinded) to see lies and accept them for truth. Do not assume that I am trying to convince you, you are to make up your own mind. Because you alone in the end will be responsible for your decisions.

Again, the reasoning that scientific reasoning holds primacy is because the world around us is a direct and observabale result of it. Check my first post in this thread once more.

This is another reason religion is slowly dying.

And the quote was clearly aimed at me.

Meanwhile, JIA and sonnet, you still continue to do absolutely nothing to deflect the issue of the Bible used to justify the Bible as circular reasoning, hence it will continue to be treated as such. And so will do you no good in trying to win any argument or convince anyone of anything.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Not quite, corn-fritter (just joking) you must acknowledge that you don't know everything there is to know about everything there is to know (did I just confuse myself?).

I know that, that's why I think in probabilities, but do you?

You don't know everything either. Why do you think you can be sure God (without any evidence) exists, but I can't be sure that something with a lot of evidence (evolution) exists?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, the reasoning that scientific reasoning holds primacy is because the world around us is a direct and observabale result of it. Check my first post in this thread once more.



Funny thing is that a lot of scientific reasoning is based on theories. The funny thing about theories is that they can still change..... if you want to base primacy on that, go on ahead. I will believe in the only truth, God.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know that, that's why I think in probabilities, but do you?

You don't know everything either. Why do you think you can be sure God (without any evidence) exists, but I can't be sure that something with a lot of evidence (evolution) exists?


See, that is what you don't get: there is evidence all around you but you cannot discern, perceive, or recognize it as such(yet) because of your spiritual blindness.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
See, that is what you don't get: there is evidence all around you but you cannot discern, perceive, or recognize it as such(yet) because of your spiritual blindness.

That's the difference, the evidence of my views can be seen by everybody, always and everywhere. Which is why they are so true.

Originally posted by sonnet
Funny thing is that a lot of scientific reasoning is based on theories. The funny thing about theories is that they can still change..... if you want to base primacy on that, go on ahead. I will believe in the only truth, God.

No, nearly ALL of it is based on theory. And yes, that can change, unlike dogmatic religion, which cannot. Another victory for Science. You cannot try to combat me with one of science's strengths.

What makes a theory a theory rather than just a hypothesis is the existence of evidence. A theory is refined and improved over time as more evidence becomes available.

What is not reasonable- never reasonable- is to think something is so when there is absolutely no evidence for it, outside of the realm of philosophical debate.

Your idea that there is evidence for God is simply a statement with no backing. There IS no such evidence, and you saying there is does not change that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, nearly ALL of it is based on theory. And yes, that can change, unlike dogmatic religion, which cannot. Another victory for Science. You cannot try to combat me with one of science's strengths.

What makes a theory a theory rather than just a hypothesis is the existence of evidence. A theory is refined and improved over time as more evidence becomes available.

What is not reasonable- never reasonable- is to think something is so when there is absolutely no evidence for it, outside of the realm of philosophical debate.

Your idea that there is evidence for God is simply a statement with no backing. There IS no such evidence, and you saying there is does not change that.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
See, that is what you don't get: there is evidence all around you but you cannot discern, perceive, or recognize it as such(yet) because of your spiritual blindness.

Once more- you simply SAYING there is evidence means nothing. Again, it is no stronger than the word of a delusional cult member.

The objective fact remains that the evidence is not there.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once more- you simply SAYING there is evidence means nothing. Again, it is no stronger than the word of a delusional cult member.

The objective fact remains that the evidence is not there.

You must be in the final stages of utter delusion if you can't see the world around you is evidence of God's existence. Oh, I get it: you are alluding to your tenuous view of evolution not having any evidence.

Again, any delusional person can simply say there is lots of invisible evidence that no-one else can see. Deano does it in the Conspiracy area all the time.

But once more, by the same rationale that built cars and cities and modern cilvilisation and this computer that I am now making this post on, I see evidence for evolution, absolutely none for what you talk about, and hence absolutely no credibility, sense or rationality behind what you say at all.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You must be in the final stages of utter delusion if you can't see the world around you is evidence of God's existence. Oh, I get it: you are alluding to your tenuous view of evolution not having any evidence.

But there are many other explanations for the world around us. So it's sole existence is not proof for God.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once more- you simply SAYING there is evidence means nothing. Again, it is no stronger than the word of a delusional cult member.

The objective fact remains that the evidence is not there.


hysterical

That statement should be in the Guinness Book of World Records for most abusurd comment ever made by a human being.

I am sure you love to see my statements as silly in your own, limited mind, JIA. But as my statements are based on rationality and logic, the rational and intelligent man will see their foundation, and also judge your juvenile responses accordingly.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am sure you love to see my statements as silly in your own, limited mind, JIA. But as my statements are based on rationality and logic, the rational and intelligent man will see their foundation, and also judge your juvenile responses accordingly.

What juvenile responses? It is my opinion.

Look, let's just agree to disagree, huh, how about it?


You ain't ever gonna change what I believe/know and I perhaps am not the one that will lead you to Christ. So let's just move on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How so?

Because you refuse to apply the same rationale, logic, and intelligence to creationism as you do to evolution. You say, "where, where is the evidence for God?"

(The whole time that you are asking that question you are breathing the air that He created for you to breath. All of life and matter all around you is shouting God's existence and yet you still disbelieve)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Because you refuse to apply the same rationale, logic, and intelligence to creationism as you do to evolution. You say, "where, where is the evidence for God?"

(The whole time that you are asking that question you are breathing the air that He created for you to breath. All of life and matter all around you is shouting God's existence and yet you still disbelieve)

I do the same for evolution. Just that I get evidence for it. I apply the exact same way of finding the truth to both. One gives me the certainty that it exists and the other (God) does not.

I am breathing the air that exists by chance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, nearly ALL of it is based on theory. And yes, that can change, unlike dogmatic religion, which cannot. Another victory for Science. You cannot try to combat me with one of science's strengths.

What makes a theory a theory rather than just a hypothesis is the existence of evidence. A theory is refined and improved over time as more evidence becomes available.

What is not reasonable- never reasonable- is to think something is so when there is absolutely no evidence for it, outside of the realm of philosophical debate.

Your idea that there is evidence for God is simply a statement with no backing. There IS no such evidence, and you saying there is does not change that.
What you actually mean is that you cannot see the evidence.

Originally posted by sonnet
What you actually mean is that you cannot see the evidence.

But that's the thing with real evidence, everyone can see it. Cause it exists beyond ideologies.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But that's the thing with real evidence, everyone can see it. Cause it exists beyond ideologies.
O don't twist my words, You can see the evidence, your corrupted mind just won't accept the fact that God is clearly visible in His creation all around us because by aknowledging that, you have to acknowledge God and that will cause a big dilemma in your life.

Originally posted by sonnet
O don't twist my words, You can see the evidence, your corrupted mind just won't accept the fact that God is clearly visible in His creation all around us because by aknowledging that, you have to acknowledge God and that will cause a big dilemma in your life.

That is bullshit. The existence of a world that can be explained through many different theories does not prove the existence of one of them (God).

Ha ha, "corrupted mind." This is why I don't even bother trying to talk to people like this...

Originally posted by sonnet
O don't twist my words, You can see the evidence, your corrupted mind just won't accept the fact that God is clearly visible in His creation all around us because by aknowledging that, you have to acknowledge God and that will cause a big dilemma in your life. There is as much evidence that God exists as in the Santa Claus.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is bullshit. The existence of a world that can be explained through many different theories does not prove the existence of one of them (God).
God is not a theory though, He is very real. Just a pity you won't accept the obvious. It could save your soul.

Originally posted by sonnet
God is not a theory though, He is very real. Just a pity you won't accept the obvious. It could save your soul. God is a concept and an idea not real in the slightest.

Originally posted by ThePittman
God is a concept and an idea not real in the slightest.
Sorry to inform you that you are wrong. But I guess you feel comfortable rather believing that there is no real God.

Originally posted by sonnet
Sorry to inform you that you are wrong. But I guess you feel comfortable rather believing that there is no real God. Sorry that you are so miss guided that you believe in fairy tales of people that would have thought a Bic lighter was magic.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Sorry that you are so miss guided that you believe in fairy tales of people that would have thought a Bic lighter was magic.
And Satan smiles down at the world and those he blinded so completely that they cannot see the light of Christ any more.

Originally posted by sonnet
And Satan smiles down at the world and those he blinded so completely that they cannot see the light of Christ any more.

You seem to know too much about Satan.

Originally posted by sonnet
And Satan smiles down at the world and those he blinded so completely that they cannot see the light of Christ any more. How could you take the writings of people that had no understanding of the world and how it works and believed that everything was magic or some type of power? They believed the world was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was at the center of the universe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do the same for evolution. Just that I get evidence for it. I apply the exact same way of finding the truth to both. One gives me the certainty that it exists and the other (God) does not.

I am breathing the air that exists by chance.



A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.2
--English physicist Sir James

This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.3
--Charles Darwin

The first conditions that determined the basic constants of nature and the emergence of life were set in place with amazing exactness. To give an idea of how precisely the universe appears to have been constructed, it is enough to think of a golfer who can hit his ball from Earth to a hole on Mars! 7
--Contemporary philosopher Jean Guitton of the French Academy

The fitness... a series of maxima-unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean-so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness.8
--Lawrence Henderson, a professor in Harvard University's department of biological chemistry

The fitness of water would in all probability be less if its viscosity were much lower. The structures of living systems would be subject to far more violent movements under shearing forces if the viscosity were as low as liquid hydrogen... If the viscosity of water was much lower, delicate structures would be easily disrupted . . . and water would be incapable of supporting any permanent intricate microscopic structures. The delicate molecular architecture of the cell would probably not survive.

If the viscosity was higher, the controlled movement of large macromolecules and particularly structures such as mitochondria and small organelles would be impossible, as would processes like cell division. All the vital activities of the cell would be effectively frozen, and cellular life of any sort remotely resembling that with which we are familiar would be impossible. The development of higher organisms, which is critically dependent on the ability of cells to move and crawl around during embryogenesis, would certainly be impossible if the viscosity of water was even slightly greater than it is.10
--molecular biologist Michael Denton


Plants do not proliferate in a field to the point where they become crowded. They do not engage in a "struggle for existence" where natural selection would preserve the strong and destroy the weak. Plants tend to control their populations by sensing the density of the planting. When the growth is dense, plants produce less seeds; when growth is thin, they produce more seeds.11
--Israeli biophysicist Lee M. Spetner

Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vegetable Kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants.12
--Charles Darwin

... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.13
--Dr. Eldred Corner of Cambridge University


How does an acorn know it has to grow into an oak tree and not into a sunflower? . . . The science of biology took a pivotal turn about 40 years ago when biologists began to learn how information plays its role in living organisms. We have discovered the location of the information in the organism that tells it how to function and how to grow, how to live and how to reproduce. The information is in the seed as well as in the plant; it's in the egg as well as in the chicken. The egg passes the information to the chicken it becomes, and the chicken passes it to the egg it lays, and so on.14
--Dr. Lee Spetner

Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.16
--well-known paleontologist and curator of the American Museum of Natural History Niles Eldredge

If God created all things down to the smallest particle to atoms then how can it be explained though science and not some mystical power, why would he make it so that it can be explained through science?

To test our faith silly!

Proving the existence of God does not mean proving christianism... just to remember.

Oh... and for me the existence of God is not mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution.

No, the Theory of Natural selection is not exclusive to god.

Originally posted by Alliance
To test our faith silly! doh

Originally posted by ThePittman
If God created all things down to the smallest particle to atoms then how can it be explained though science and not some mystical power, why would he make it so that it can be explained through science?

Because that is the way that God operates, that is His modus operandi. He knew that there would be academicians who would try and explain away His infinite genius, ingenuity, understanding, knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom. So He put His signature as it were in and on all of His creative work (i.e. nature, life, natural laws, etc.) so that just like a person in search of treasure you all could unearth them piecemeal and marvel. God beholds as you discover that science and God do not contradict one another, but they are complentary.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Because that is the way that God operates, that is His modus operandi. He knew that there would be academicians who would try and explain away His infinite genius, ingenuity, understanding, knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom. So He put His signature as it were in and on all of His creative work (i.e. nature, life, natural laws, etc.) so that just like a person in search of treasure you all could unearth them piecemeal and marvel. God beholds as you discover that science and God do not contradict one another, but they are complentary. So you are saying that you know how he works and what he thinks?

However the advancement of science and understanding of the world around us leads to disproving his existence not proving he is real. As humans gain a greater knowledge of science we move away from religion, as each generation passes and mans knowledge expands religions start to fade.

Originally posted by Alliance
No, the Theory of Natural selection is not exclusive to god.

Yes, but there is people who thinks otherwise.

Most certainly, but I bet those same people also do not know what the Theory of Natural Selection.

Without religion there would be no God, they are all the same. Why do you believe in a religion or follow its teaching is because it is supposed to be the word of God so they are the same. As time goes on and people learn more religions and the belief in God starts to fade, simply look at the numbers of followers today as compared to 100 years ago. In another 1,000 years people will look back and laugh at what people used to believe as many do with the Greek gods now.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No erudite and scholarly replies?

No erudite and scholarly people read anything you post.

umm this has probably been asked a million times already... but I can never seem to get a good answer that actually manages to answer the question...

who created God...?

Why would we waste time writing erudite replies to some one who's admitted that he doesn't read the things people say to him?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I know who we need: where is Templares when we need him. He makes an effort to explain away my posts on creation and evolution.

Still waiting for an erudite and scholarly reply to this post.

Give up, you have lost all credibility.

Originally posted by dark99
umm this has probably been asked a million times already... but I can never seem to get a good answer that actually manages to answer the question...

who created God...?

God is eternal (i.e. the Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last) that is why He does not have a Creator. Furthermore, God is self-existent. Interestingly enough His Name is derived from the Hebrew verb to be.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God is eternal (i.e. the Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last) that is why He does not have a Creator. Furthermore, God is self-existent. Interestingly enough His Name is derived from the Hebrew verb to be.

But "he" is a "he" therefore "he" is a man, and being a man, "he" is limited.

Everything, IMO is circular..........maybe that is why I am sooooo fond of circles...........kinda instilled in my being..........circles, circles....

Originally posted by debbiejo
Everything, IMO is a circular..........maybe that is why I am sooooo fond of circles...........kinda instilled in my being..........circles, circles....

Shhhh Deb, in this thread circles are a bad thing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Shhhh Deb, in this thread circles are a bad thing. Oh...........

Nice to see you talking and not posting scripture.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Nice to see you talking and not posting scripture.

We are finally influencing him.

* crosses fingers*

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You have not followed me since my advent to this site. I have over 1600 posts. In those posts I have stated my own thoughts and then undergirded them with Scriptures and other facts.

Recently, yes I have used a number of articles written by other people. I am intelligent enough to understand, recognize and admit that I don't know everything. Moreover, I realize that I do not have to do everything either. If I need legal counsel I pay my lawyer. If not medical attention I see my physician. If I need historical information I will read it in a book. If I want my money to grow I will seek out a financial advisor. Only people that don't have any common sense try to do everything themselves. Some articles don't need me to improve on them. So I just copy and past it because it is par excellence. Hey, there are many on this forum who have posts that not even I can improve on. I would even copy and paste it if I needed to.

Question: how do you know that anything is true? Were you there while experiments were being conducted by renowned scientists to make sure that they were doing it right? No? So then what you are telling me is that you took for granted that what they said was true was in fact true? I see, so then you don't really know for sure because you were not there. Uh, huh, so then how do you know that there are facts that support evolution? I know everybody and their mother is going to barrage this post with replies but really, this is addressed to Pittman. I would love to read his response. He'll probably start out by attacking my intellect and calling me a robot, and that I don't think for myself (none of this is true). So I'll just sit back with my hands clasped behind my head and eagerly anticipate your reply Pittdiesel. First honest and true answer I have heard from you. clap3

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8708/ss2bok1.gif



http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8783/360spydercx0.gif

Survey: which picture's objects are more sophisticated and complex and required more intelligence to create? If possible answer the question if you can without saying God or evolution. That is not the issue. I just want to know which picture's objects you think took more intelligence to create. For example: "I think the first picture's objects required more intelligence to create" or "I think the object in the second picture took more know how." Got it?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Survey: which picture's objects are more sophisticated and complex and required more intelligence to create? If possible answer the question if you can without saying God or evolution. That is not the issue. I just want to know which picture's objects you think took more intelligence to create. For example: "I think the first picture's objects required more intelligence to create" or "I think the object in the second picture took more know how." Got it?

Both equally. They are both made of atoms.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Survey: which picture's objects are more sophisticated and complex and required more intelligence to create? If possible answer the question if you can without saying God or evolution. That is not the issue. I just want to know which picture's objects you think took more intelligence to create. For example: "I think the first picture's objects required more intelligence to create" or "I think the object in the second picture took more know how." Got it? Taking an unbiased stance. Given that there is no objective evidence as to intelligence being impetus behind the planets creation, I would state the Car.

JIA A question for you. Why is the stars and planets and the car all made up of the same thing; atoms?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Survey: which picture's objects are more sophisticated and complex and required more intelligence to create? If possible answer the question if you can without saying God or evolution. That is not the issue. I just want to know which picture's objects you think took more intelligence to create. For example: "I think the first picture's objects required more intelligence to create" or "I think the object in the second picture took more know how." Got it? Each one is completely different in their creation, one the planets are self creating depending on the conditions and materials available. The car can not be created on its own and must be completed from start to finish getting the final product.

With the planets, you could create on by simple throwing a rock into space. As it travels throughout the universe it will either crash into a larger body or keep collecting smaller particles until it gets enough mass to attract others and keeps building form there.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(Game show buzzer sounds: genckt, genckt, wrong answer.) Faith is not a feeling it is based soley on the Word of God. So my faith is not a feeling or thought it is a spiritual substance.

As far as weiging everything and being cynical about the agendas and motives of those who establish scientifc findings, I do not have the time, inclination, nor ability to verify everything that I read (no one can do that with everything that they read).
(buzzer: Wrong) Faith is a feeling and a belief; it is not based on the word of God. You have faith that the Bible is the word of God and you were raised to believe this. You do not know for a fact that it is the Word of God other then what people have told you as we have talked about above.

Answer: Since cars were created by an intelligent force (humans), whereas planets were not, the question is meaningless. Much like your life.

Originally posted by ThePittman
(buzzer: Wrong) Faith is a feeling and a belief; it is not based on the word of God. You have faith that the Bible is the word of God and you were raised to believe this. You do not know for a fact that it is the Word of God other then what people have told you as we have talked about above.


I speak for myself why do you think I quote the word in support of what I believe. My faith is indeed based on God's Word and nothing else. If it is not based on what God says then I am in trooouble. Everytime that I am asked why do I believe thus and so, I reply because that is what the Word says. Jesus did the same thing when tempted by the devil. He relentlessly quoted the Scriptures. Finally, the devil couldn't stand being thrust through as it were with the Sword of the Spirit (the Word of God) so he desisted in his plans to get Jesus to sin. Adam and Eve failed when they were tempted by the devil but Jesus PREVAILED. There is a big difference.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Look if you persist in this foolishness I'm a have to look you up in the Sweet Pickles Yearbook. Just ask Rocatell, his name is in there.

Now what is it going to be (has one hand on Sweet Pickles Yearbook).

My faith is based on the Word of God--not feelings. I don't feel saved, I know without a modicum of doubt that I am saved. I walk by faith not by sight (sight represents all five senses). I do not relate to God by feelings I relate to God by faith. I don't feel that Jesus Christ died for my sins I believe that He did.

2 Corinthians 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please Him , for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

Romans 10:17
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Don't try to insult. You really suck at it.

Bible quotes don't prove your point.

Why is it that people have to feel the need to exult themselves or their own beliefs??.......why is it, when it is soooooooo simple.........we are all the same..........all the same...........all the same............

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why is it that people have to feel the need to exult themselves or their own beliefs??.......why is it, when it is soooooooo simple.........we are all the same..........all the same...........all the same............
I did not exult myself. Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I have never performed a miracle myself, but that does not make it untrue. There are unexplainable things performed through the Holy Spirit and these provide evidence for God.

NO...........I was NOT talking about you..........nooooooooo...

In you own post you have confirmed what I just said.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

2 Corinthians 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.
You are using your "faith" and not what you see, so no proof.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please Him , for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.]
You believe that he is, not that you know.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Again, what you hope for and not seen, again no proof it is what you belive.

Well my God (wife) is about to come home so I need to make dinner so I don't feel the wraith of god

Ahh...a man in his place.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I did not exult myself. Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I have never performed a miracle myself, but that does not make it untrue. There are unexplainable things performed through the Holy Spirit and these provide evidence for God.

Not every single "miracle" is evidense for God. There is also "evidense" for reincarnation...

"Miracles" occur for different reasons, and there are many possibilities as to why they may or may not occur...in India, there are plenty of "Hindu" miracles, as well as in "Tarot" palm readings, many of the fortune telling happens to be extremely accurate...why is that ?

Why do you give "God" credit for every single supernatural thing that occurs? It is not evidense...

Faith is a feeling and a belief, there is nothing else, saying the Bible proves that faith is something else is the perfect definition of a circular argument. You must have faith in the Bible to believe its true because the Bible says so.

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Faith is a feeling and a belief, there is nothing else, saying the Bible proves that faith is something else is the perfect definition of a circular argument. You must have faith in the Bible to believe its true because the Bible says so.

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Your own definition belies your description of faith as being a feeling. The word feeling is nowhere present. I have given you an abundance of Scriptures describing what faith is and you persist in calling it a feeling. I am done with this discussion. You can reply to this post but I will not respond.