Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

Hamilton Porter

By Hamilton Porter
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted

You are forgetting one major factor. A snowflake shape is not intelligent code. Neither is the way the Grand canyon looks- there is no intelligent code or intelligent purpose in the way it looks. A watch is obviously an intelligent product because it carries with it a design and purpose of intelligence. This is analogous to how life works- its all intelligent information with both purpose and design.

A watch cannot reproduce, it is an inanimate object. Anything that can reproduce can change on its own without a maker. A watch can only be made by a designer because it does not occur in nature. Living organisms exist in nature. You, for example, were not created - rather, you evolved after many generations of humans. 

Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted

Something that is natural vs. something that is artificial - I think it's funny that when mankind makes it, it is artificial, but when God makes it, it is natural. 

Yes, Life is born from life & intelligence.  Abiogenesis is the fairy tale.  We require living, breathing, sentient, thinking, conscience parents who endow us with information and Heavenly Parents to endow us with intelligence.  Life is the combination of spirit and matter, and God most certainly has come down throughout my life, teaching and guiding me through my conscience - as He has with every living person.  I'm confused as to why you are so opposed to the term ID?  Different people define ID in different ways, but the basic premise of it is sound.  Do you not believe that intelligence exists? What role do you believe intelligence plays? 

ID has a very specific definition. You can create your own if you wish, but discussion would become impossible because there is no starting point. A snow flake or a mountain does not require an intelligent design. Nature produces them without any required intervention from god. This is how God created the universe, through small and simple means are great things brought to pass. The natural laws of the universe produce planets and life. Evolution is a method God uses. This is the evidence and God is not trying to trick us. . 

Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted (edited)

So I am an uneducated fringe Christian heh?

 

Based on your completely erroneous notions of evolution, and based on how well your non-standard LDS doctrines fit in with the teachings of the living prophet, you would fit this bill. 3 degrees of glory anyone?

Edited by Freedom
Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

A watch cannot reproduce, it is an inanimate object. Anything that can reproduce can change on its own without a maker. A watch can only be made by a designer because it does not occur in nature. Living organisms exist in nature. You, for example, were not created - rather, you evolved after many generations of humans.

Life exists because of the designer. Nature on its own cannot make life from nothing.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

ID has a very specific definition. You can create your own if you wish, but discussion would become impossible because there is no starting point. A snow flake or a mountain does not require an intelligent design. Nature produces them without any required intervention from god. This is how God created the universe, through small and simple means are great things brought to pass. The natural laws of the universe produce planets and life. Evolution is a method God uses. This is the evidence and God is not trying to trick us. .

And yet all the scientists in the world cant create life from natural laws in nature. Scientists trick themselves into believing something they cant see, never observed, and from tests prove otherwise. Who tricking who?

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

And yet all the scientists in the world cant create life from natural laws in nature. Scientists trick themselves into believing something they cant see, never observed, and from tests prove otherwise. Who tricking who?

That may be true today, but we simply do not know how far technical developments will go in the future.  One of the reasons why Richard Dawkins is so willing to agree with other scientists on the likelihood of advanced beings existing in other parts of the universe is because it is statistically likely.  He is also willing to accept that such advanced beings (well ahead of us) could have what we might define as god-like powers in technology, including the ability to create life.  He only rejects the concept of a supernatural god, which is normative for the Muslim-Jewish-Christian tradition, which posits a God existing outside time and space, who is unrelated to his Creation, except as the Creator from nothing.  Scientists and philosophers tend to view such a God as both illogical and absurd.  And they are correct.

Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted

And yet all the scientists in the world cant create life from natural laws in nature. Scientists trick themselves into believing something they cant see, never observed, and from tests prove otherwise. Who tricking who?

Your logic goes as follows: if we cannot explain it, it must be a miracle from God. So, all things that cannot be explained are miracles from God and will never be explained because, well, they are miracles. Thus, to continue your logic, we should stop investigating all mysteries because we will never have the answer. 

 

All those people who have solved mysteries to date will be going to hell for deceiving us. Anti-biotics are a tool of the devil, electricity is driven by satan himself. manned flight is powered from the depths of hell. So you see, Rob, you logic is hopelessly flawed. You feel that anything that you do not understand is godly magic and will never be explained by science. People like you perpetuated the dark ages. Thankfully, people like me broke us out of that miserable time in history. 

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

Science is Agnostic when it comes to God.

False.  It is a major fallacy to assert that "Science" is a thinking being capable of taking an agnostic or any other philosophical position.  That incorrectly anthropomorphizes Science.

 

Scientists can believe or not believe as they choose.

Of course they can, but you miss the point.  It is precisely individual humans who have thoughts and take intellectual positions.  The academic discipline of science consists of no such dogmas, but is both a problem-solving process as well as a set of theories.  It is open-ended.  You are attempting to make it closed-ended in order to have it serve your own ideological purposes.  That's a no-no.

 

Sure in hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies there probably is a species so technologically advanced that we would consider them Gods. We just have precious little evidence(beyond a faith they are out there), and no proof of them.

 

Astrophysicists currently do not take the position you take. Advanced sentient beings and the habitable planets they occupy are simply too likely. You are out of step with the consensus of scientists. If you want citations, I will be only to happy to provide them, or you yourself can easily find plenty of references on the internet.

1
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

And yet all the scientists in the world cant create life from natural laws in nature. Scientists trick themselves into believing something they cant see, never observed, and from tests prove otherwise. Who tricking who?

 

That is a God of the Gaps argument. An identical sentence was said in 1902. Just before the Wright brothers and their powered heavier than air flying machine.

SEE

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted (edited)

A valid argument requires evidence. There is no valid argument besides evolution.

I know of no evidence which proves evolution.  It may make a very good inference from observation, but it does not explain enough problems to be accepted as proven.

 

Snow flakes do not have a designer, yet they are perfect in their symmetry,. They occur naturally.

So do wristwatches occur naturally?

 

The Grand Canyon does not have a designer, yet it is majestic in its size and beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the Grand Canyon was not sculpted by the hands of a designer, but instead by physical laws of erosion and entropy.  That is a straw man.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted

So do wristwatches occur naturally?

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the Grand Canyon was not sculpted by the hands of a designer, but instead by physical laws of erosion and entropy.

Examine the logic - watches are complex and they have a designer; therefor all things that are complex have a designer. Cats have 4 legs and they are mammals, therefore all animals that have 4 legs are mammals. My phone is black and it is a samsung, therefore all black phones are made by samsung. Is it really so difficult to see just how profoundly stupid the 'watch' argument is? 

 

Something does not have to be complex to have a designer. Stonehenge is not particularly complex, yet it clearly had a designer. Carving the word 'cat' in a piece of wood is not complex, yet it has a designer. A snow flax is extremely complex compared to the word 'cat', yet it does not have a designer. All sorts of complex systems appear in nature without a supreme being stepping in. The grand canyon is sculpted by the physical laws of erosion and entropy, living organisms are sculpted by the physical laws of evolution.  It is just that simple. 

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

False.  It is a major fallacy to assert that "Science" is a thinking being capable of taking an agnostic or any other philosophical position.  That incorrectly anthropomorphizes Science.

 

Of course they can, but you miss the point.  It is precisely individual humans who have thoughts and take intellectual positions.  The academic discipline of science consists of no such dogmas, but is both a problem-solving process as well as a set of theories.  It is open-ended.  You are attempting to make it closed-ended in order to have it serve your own ideological purposes.  That's a no-no.

 

 

Astrophysicists currently do not take the position you take. Advanced sentient beings and the habitable planets they occupy are simply too likely. You are out of step with the consensus of scientists. If you want citations, I will be only to happy to provide them, or you yourself can easily find plenty of references on the internet.

 

Of course science isn't a being of any type. It is a product of human thought. Just as Atheism, and Theism are. Science is Agnostic. Scientists can believe or not believe as is their choice. Where have I ever said there is no God or God isn't involved in our world? There is no known scientific test for God or Godlike force.

SEE

 

All that I have ever said about life on other planets is that so far we have discovered about 1000 separate planets. That of those discovered planets that we currently have absolutely no scientific proof for life as we know it, outside our own. Martin the Martian didn't wave to us when we landed probes there.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life

 

The only one that we know about that has life is the one we reside on. In a universe of hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies there is a high likelihood of life. Maybe even life that humans would call Gods.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Yes, and you are apparently unable or afraid to answer my questions.  They are not trick questions.

 

When you start out with a faulty premise there is no other way to respond except to demonstrate that faulty premise.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

Your logic goes as follows: if we cannot explain it, it must be a miracle from God. So, all things that cannot be explained are miracles from God and will never be explained because, well, they are miracles. Thus, to continue your logic, we should stop investigating all mysteries because we will never have the answer. 

 

All those people who have solved mysteries to date will be going to hell for deceiving us. Anti-biotics are a tool of the devil, electricity is driven by satan himself. manned flight is powered from the depths of hell. So you see, Rob, you logic is hopelessly flawed. You feel that anything that you do not understand is godly magic and will never be explained by science. People like you perpetuated the dark ages. Thankfully, people like me broke us out of that miserable time in history. 

Your outright arrogance and ignorance is astounding!

 

How many times are we gonna rehash this. Do you have a problem with understanding basic English?

 

Listen carefully (read carefully). I welcome all science we can prove and test. Electricity, manned flight, etc, are all areas where we can actually perform tests and see results. I have nothing but praise for that science. You understand that do you not? WHERE I do have a problem is with branches of science that spout off things as fact when they cannot even prove such scenerios could possibly happen. When tests repeatedly show, over and over that intelligence only comes from intelligence and life only comes from life that becomes rather factual and observable. I never said we can't explain it- you keep assuming I say that. I have been saying all along that humans only come from humans- we can directly observe that, we can test it- its sound.

 

You should get up to speed with what I have been saying.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

That is a God of the Gaps argument. An identical sentence was said in 1902. Just before the Wright brothers and their powered heavier than air flying machine.

You completely missed the point.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Your outright arrogance and ignorance is astounding!

 

How many times are we gonna rehash this. Do you have a problem with understanding basic English?

 

Listen carefully (read carefully). I welcome all science we can prove and test. Electricity, manned flight, etc, are all areas where we can actually perform tests and see results. I have nothing but praise for that science. You understand that do you not? WHERE I do have a problem is with branches of science that spout off things as fact when they cannot even prove such scenerios could possibly happen. When tests repeatedly show, over and over that intelligence only comes from intelligence and life only comes from life that becomes rather factual and observable. I never said we can't explain it- you keep assuming I say that. I have been saying all along that humans only come from humans- we can directly observe that, we can test it- its sound.

 

You should get up to speed with what I have been saying.

 

I'm not convinced that we're all that intelligent. No evolutionist ever claimed otherwise. Either you are woefully ignorant of what the science of evolution actually says or you are being deliberately deceptive.

SEE

Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted

 

 

You should get up to speed with what I have been saying.

I am, you repeatedly claim that whenever we do not know the answer it must be God. I showed examples where, in the past, we were ignorant of things but are now aware. Just because we have not figured out how to do something yet does not mean that it cannot be done through natural process. 

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

You completely missed the point.

 

Then what is your point? You accurately stated that we have not yet successfully duplicated life in the lab. You keep repeating that mantra as if it were some sort  of a talisman against the science of evolution. Well a little over 111 years ago we hadn't yet duplicated birds flying abilities either. There were people chanting the mantra that the fact that we hadn't yet achieved heavier than air powered flight meant that God meant that we never would. Therefore A God of the Gaps.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...