Originally posted by AngryManatee
You have no authority on the subject of macroevolution, so how can I take you seriously?Anywho, copypasta: 29+ Evidences For Macroevolution
But, are you an authority on macroevolution?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Mechanical Engineering
Ahhh. That's a nice one. I changed from Physics (with hopes to go astro-physics) to Medical (MD) and now IT Security. I've got three years left on my current degree. 🙁
I think a college education-emphasis on philosophy and theology-really helps to understand religion. I also find it helpful to know what field someone is an expert in on this board so I can ask them a question or t verify my information.
Originally posted by dadudemoni agree, but dude seriously change ur ****in pic its scarring me
Ahhh. That's a nice one. I changed from Physics (with hopes to go astro-physics) to Medical (MD) and now IT Security. I've got three years left on my current degree. 🙁I think a college education-emphasis on philosophy and theology-really helps to understand religion. I also find it helpful to know what field someone is an expert in on this board so I can ask them a question or t verify my information.
Originally posted by Templares
I have faith on their method of inquiry, the scientific method. That faith is justified by the fact that scientific explanations from the said methodology was peer-tested and proven to be correct and accurate upon application, time and time again, in the field of medicine, field of electronics etc. which i encounter first hand. If it works for them, then its safe to assume that it also works for the field of astronomy. Given its high rate of success and my own experiences first hand, faith in the scientific method is NOT an example of blind faith.
Question: did you personally conduct any of those peer-tested scientific inquiries that your entire, eternal future is based on? No? So then you are still (blindly) putting your faith in something/someone regardless.
Originally posted by Templares
So now your using for the Argument of Universal Design for God's existence. Lets break this down:The necessity of having an Intelligent Designer to "design the universe" does not constitute as PROOF for the existence of the one claiming to be the Intelligent Designer. You still have to provide outside and reliable proof for its existence.
Applying the Argument of of Universal Design for God's Existence.
I: the universe appears to be designed or fine-tuned
J: the universe needs a designer
K: God is the designer of the universe
Therefore, God existsThe problem here is K because by claiming that God is the designer of the universe, it assumes that God already EXISTS. But thats what we are trying to prove with the Argument of Universal Design for God's Existence. We are getting ahead of our conclusion. The inclusion of K shows that the Argument of Universal Design for God's Existence is an example of a circular argument, invalidating the conclusion. Take away K however and the argument falls flat. Prove first by reliable means outside of the framed argument that God exists before using him as proof. Heck if God was proven to exist outside of the framed argument, we wont even be NEEDING the Argument of Universal Design on the FIRST PLACE.
Both I and J themselves are also problem points. To claim that the universe was designed or requires a designer, it must first be established that it was manufactured or designed. This is where the problem lies. It must FIRST be demonstrated that the Intelligent Designer exists, and then - and only then - can it be asserted with confidence that the universe is INDEED manufactured or the product of a designer. Yet another circular argument, when will it stop?
So I guess that the designer of a washing machine must first be proven to exist before any rational, sane person can conclude that it was designed? Is that what you are saying? This is ridiculous. Complicated design (of the magnitude of this complex system called earth) inherently points to an intelligent Designer. The human species is so complicated in terms of design, intellect, reasoning capacity, consciousness (which still cannot be explained scientifically), is reason enough to conclude that God exists. If I saw tire tracks, I would not need to prove that the tires that made the marks exist. Common sense (not peer-tested research based on the scientific method) dictates that at least the tires that made the tracks exists. I don't know how you can see this and understand this logic, yet not understand that the same logic can be applied to the existence of God (without seeing Him).
This is blind faith at work. Your average comic book is more scientifically sound than the Bible. Somebody should have told the author of Numbers that bats and whales are mammals. The Bible and the Greek Iliad have the same level of historical accuracy. Plenty of names and places are rooted in real history but the events described are mixed with a heavy dose of fiction. Its difficult to seperate the fact from the fiction. Prophetically, do i have to post again the list of messianic prophecies that Jesus FAILED?
And honestly, what makes the Christian Bible superior than other divinely inspired books out there like the Koran and the Vedas? They cant be all right especially since the Koran, i believe, declares that the Bible has been tampered with.
Originally posted by Templares
As demonstrated above, the Argument of Universal Design has MORE logical flaws than the Argument of First Cause.The Bible is still an unreliable book to based your truths on because its based on blind faith.
From our current understanding of the Big Bang, the state of "nothingness" that precedes it doesnt have a cause/ or stimulus for the same reason that an imaginary supernatural god wouldnt need one. They are both beyond the concept of time hence there is no "time before" for their supposed cause to exist. Time started with the Big bang. Any arbitrary and unfounded claims that would make a supernatural god as the cause of the Big Bang would also work for this state of "nothingness" [/B]
I have already stated that the Bible is historically, prophetically, and scientifically sound. I don't want to rehash that post.
God does not have a beginning or end according to the Bible (which I accept by faith). For you to say that the Big Bang does not have a beginning is pure conjecture. How do you know that the Big Bang does not have a beginning? Has this been proven using the scientifc method? No? Then once again you have blind faith in something that has not even been empirically tested. You must admit that you are in the same boat as believers, whom you appear to have very little if no respect for. This is just my observation and I hope this does not offend you.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is the answer based on the Scriptures which [B]I accept by faith.I am not open to the possibility that the Bible may be wrong because I believe that it is the Word of God; hence, I believe the Bible is infallible. I believe that the Bible is the absolute revelation from God to humanity, not any other book (this is my belief).
Your example does not have as much validity because it runs counter to the express revelation in the Scriptures. God states in His Word that life originated one way and you say that it happened another way. Question: Who has more credibility you or God? God is more believable to me because this universe and earth are immediate proof (to me) of what He is able to do. Since--not if--God is able to create all of this reality, I don't have any trouble at all believing that He can create life without the process described in evolutionary theory.
[/B]
You admit that your source of info-- the bible -- is only true by your own choice and then in the same breath declare it the only source of truth. You can't have it both ways. Either it can stand on its own merits, and is true regardless of your opinion, or it is a subjective truth, with varying degrees of "truthiness" to different people. You declared it to be subjective, and to force someone to follow your world view (by teaching ID) is pure ethical imperialism.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
i agree, but dude seriously change ur ****in pic its scarring me
You like my avatar? I actually did not make that picture with photoshop...someone else did the majority of the work.
I added some black fluid to the face and brought out the teeth to make it appear "better". I REALLY like horror and this is why I chose this avatar.
Originally posted by dadudemonmake it stop plz for the love of chuck make it stop
You like my avatar? I actually did not make that picture with photoshop...someone else did the majority of the work.I added some black fluid to the face and brought out the teeth to make it appear "better". I REALLY like horror and this is why I chose this avatar.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveThe simple answer is yes, you first must prove how it was built to see if there is a designer. Your example is ludicrous because you formed the question that way, the problem with your logic for life and the creation of the universe is that we do not know for a certainty how it was created. You look at life as being this complex thing and in truth it is only because we do not know all of its complexities so this makes it hard to understand. You can have something that is so very complex and then can be explained in the simplest of equations such as E = mc2, a simple equation that took a life time to figure out with one of the most brilliant minds of our time.
So I guess that the designer of a washing machine must first be proven to exist before any rational, sane person can conclude that it was designed? Is that what you are saying? This is ridiculous. Complicated design (of the magnitude of this complex system called earth) inherently points to an intelligent Designer. The human species is so complicated in terms of design, intellect, reasoning capacity, consciousness (which still cannot be explained scientifically), is reason enough to conclude that God exists. If I saw tire tracks, I would not need to prove that the tires that made the marks exist. Common sense (not peer-tested research based on the scientific method) dictates that at least the tires that made the tracks exists. I don't know how you can see this and understand this logic, yet not understand that the same logic can be applied to the existence of God (without seeing Him).
You like to use deductive reasoning and this is good in most situations as in your tire example but this could have other possibilities that it was created by something else, though the logic “look for the horse and not the zebra” is the most common answer but it doesn’t prove it. Deductive reasoning is pretty much thrown out the window dealing with quantum mechanics.
Originally posted by Jbill311
You admit that your source of info-- the bible -- is only true by your own choice and then in the same breath declare it the only source of truth. You can't have it both ways. Either it can stand on its own merits, and is true regardless of your opinion, or it is a subjective truth, with varying degrees of "truthiness" to different people. You declared it to be subjective, and to force someone to follow your world view (by teaching ID) is pure ethical imperialism.
I never said that the Bible is only true by my own choice. I just reiterate the fact that I believe that the Bible is true (i.e. I take it for it is or I accept it without necessarily trying to prove that it is true).
Originally posted by Da Pittman
The simple answer is yes, you first must prove how it was built to see if there is a designer. Your example is ludicrous because you formed the question that way, the problem with your logic for life and the creation of the universe is that we do not know for a certainty how it was created. You look at life as being this complex thing and in truth it is only because we do not know all of its complexities so this makes it hard to understand. You can have something that is so very complex and then can be explained in the simplest of equations such as E = mc2, a simple equation that took a life time to figure out with one of the most brilliant minds of our time.You like to use deductive reasoning and this is good in most situations as in your tire example but this could have other possibilities that it was created by something else, though the logic “look for the horse and not the zebra” is the most common answer but it doesn’t prove it. Deductive reasoning is pretty much thrown out the window dealing with quantum mechanics.
Why must I prove how something was done to ascertain whether there was a designer if the thing made shows evidence of design (i.e. planned, purposeful, intelligent effect?) Let us take the Eiffel Tower for example. It is massive, detailed and did I say enormous? It cannot be a product of random, chance occurence just because of its structure (very complicated), its position (it is not on the moon), its balance and symmetry (it could have been uneven or lying on its side). How could all of these aspects of this immense construction have just happened without the deliberate, intentional, direction of a thinking person? I am not talking about snow flakes, I am referring to purposeful arrangement on a larger, more sophisticated/complex scale.
Now, I said all that to say this: this earth dwarfs all man-made objects in terms of degree of complication in the areas of physics, chemistry, astrophysics, biology, advanced mathematics and engineering and yet there is doubt that it had an intelligent Designer? (I just don't get the flagrant double-standard.)
No, I beg to differ. Tire tracks are normally produced by tires. This is the most logical explanation.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveYou missed everything that I have said in my post, you keep referring to things that are man made but even these things are made up of non-complex parts it is only when they are join together in a particular arrangement that they form something more complex. These simple things are the building blocks to something bigger or more complex, you only want to refer to things that was built with a design and purpose and not something that is random such as the formation of planets and stars which is govern by mass and gravity.
Why must I prove how something was done to ascertain whether there was a designer if the thing made shows evidence of design (i.e. planned, purposeful, intelligent effect?) Let us take the Eiffel Tower for example. It is massive, detailed and did I say enormous? It cannot be a product of random, chance occurence just because of its structure (very complicated), its position (it is not on the moon), its balance and symmetry (it could have been uneven or lying on its side). How could all of these aspects of this immense construction have just happened without the deliberate, intentional, direction of a thinking person? I am not talking about snow flakes, I am referring to purposeful arrangement on a larger, more sophisticated/complex scale.Now, I said all that to say this: [B]this earth dwarfs all man-made objects in terms of degree of complication in the areas of physics, chemistry, astrophysics, biology, advanced mathematics and engineering and yet there is doubt that it had an intelligent Designer? (I just don't get the flagrant double-standard.)
No, I beg to differ. Tire tracks are normally produced by tires. This is the most logical explanation. [/B]
I still like the way you dodge the snowflake question, but hey I don’t expect you to. Just because the answer is the “most” logical doesn’t mean that it is the correct one as I have said. Many things that have been thought to be the most logical answer in science turns out to be the incorrect answer. You can look around and see for yourself all the stages of life on this planet from the simple single cell organism to complex ones. By deductive reasoning we can trace back from the highest from of life to the smallest and the similarities that all of them have so why would the single cell have the same characteristics as the cells in a complex organism?
A few others…
Does coal turning into a diamond have a designer?
Does a dinosaur turning into oil have a designer?
Do cancer cells have a designer?