Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

BCSpace

By BCSpace
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

cdowis Grand Master

cdowis

Posted
Posted (edited)

Appeals to the supernatural are by definition not science.

 

Why are you unaware that we teach that the Lord  is bound by natural laws.?

 

According to Answers to Genesis man Ken Ham it was. Further he also claims that if there is life on other planets they are all damned to his Christianist Hell any way. So why bother to look for them?

 

What does this have to do with my post?

 

We can account for about 4% of the matter and energy in the known universe. As such any claim other than we see the gravitational effect is an Argument from Ignorance. I guess if you want to claim that that 96% is God. How could I possibly contradict it?

 

Why are you putting words in my mouth?  That is a sign that you really have nothing meaningful to say when you use straw arguments.

See my post #130.  

 

SEE his video.  It is available on netflix which has a 30 day free trial period.

Edited by cdowis
1
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Right. He didn't make the statement you have been attributing to him. 

 

He absolutely did. Again here i what he said . "I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel . An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race—human beings who are all descendants of Adam".

 

1. He believes there is no intelligent life in outer space. Why? Not because we haven't found it yet.

2. Because God told him so in the bible.

3. His belief is that salvation is only for those that lived/live on this planet.

 

So any alien race not from earth bound Adam is going to Hell.

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

 I didn't see that as rating anyone's intelligence. Lack of specific knowledge is not the same thing as lack of native intelligence. The former can be cured, the latter not so much. If they don't know the meaning of words, or make them up as they go along, it is kinda hard to present evidence for what is said.

 

Technically it doesn't make it false either. So we are left with what is the evidence for any claim. In science we can only use what is natural physical matter and energy. The false dichotomy of micro vs macro evolution is evidence of the same process.

 

 I pay attention. I've responded to nearly every claim presented by supporters and critics alike.

 

I was responding to Mormon(not so)FreeThinker's post. Not yours.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

 

Appeals to the supernatural are by definition not science.

 

Why are you unaware that we teach that the Lord  is bound by natural laws.?

 

According to Answers to Genesis man Ken Ham it was. Further he also claims that if there is life on other planets they are all damned to his Christianist Hell any way. So why bother to look for them?

 

What does this have to do with my post?

 

We can account for about 4% of the matter and energy in the known universe. As such any claim other than we see the gravitational effect is an Argument from Ignorance. I guess if you want to claim that that 96% is God. How could I possibly contradict it?

 

Why are you putting words in my mouth?  That is a sign that you really have nothing meaningful to say when you use straw arguments.

See my post #130.  

 

SEE his video.  It is available on netflix which has a 30 day free trial period.

 

 

Yes I am aware of that. That belief has no relevance to science.

 

You are claiming that I said this planet was formed in 7000 years. I didn't say that. I said that Creationists(like Ken Ham) believe that this planet was formed 6000 years ago.

 

Here is what you posted in post #130: "In the youtube video he expresses "faith" that we will progress in our understanding of the laws of the universe, laughs at the god of gaps,  but admits that there are things that we may never be able to understand". I agreed that it is possible that we may never know, But to depend on that possibility in order to defend God has proven wrong since at least the time of Galileo. I don't believe God needs our defending him.

 

I already have Netflicks. Again the argument that just because we don't know something can not be used as a proof-text against us not knowing it in the future. IE; About a hundred and fourteen years ago it was believed that a reasonably intelligent man could "know" everything there was to know. Today we know such beliefs are categorically wrong, and preposterous.

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

He absolutely did. Again here i what he said . "I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel . An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race—human beings who are all descendants of Adam".

 

1. He believes there is no intelligent life in outer space. Why? Not because we haven't found it yet.

2. Because God told him so in the bible.

3. His belief is that salvation is only for those that lived/live on this planet.

 

So any alien race not from earth bound Adam is going to Hell.

 

 

If you think that this statement:

 

Here is what I posted "Further he also claims that if there is life on other planets they are all damned to his Christianist Hell any way."

And this statement:

 

"I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel . An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race—human beings who are all descendants of Adam".

 

 

 Are equal, then I can't help you. Because they clearly are not the same.

 

In essence, your attack on Ken Ham is no different from Bill Maher's. Ken simply doesn't say what you are claiming. Ken is making a theological statement, not a scientific one. 

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

Yes I am aware of that. That belief has no relevance to science.

 

 

It seems to me that science has deliberately blinded itself.  When the blind lead the blind sooner or later both end up in the ditch.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

It seems to me that science has deliberately blinded itself.  When the blind lead the blind sooner or later both end up in the ditch.

 

While science is a limited way of observing/understanding the universe. It is not blind.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

 

 

If you think that this statement:

 

And this statement:

 

"I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel . An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race—human beings who are all descendants of Adam".

 

 

 Are equal, then I can't help you. Because they clearly are not the same.

 

In essence, your attack on Ken Ham is no different from Bill Maher's. Ken simply doesn't say what you are claiming. Ken is making a theological statement, not a scientific one. 

 

Not my attack. Personally; Mr. Ham can believe any silly thing he wants, as long as he lets me believe any silly thing I want. I report what he said you decide.

 

To be fair and balanced Mr. Ham did clarify his statement with

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/31/ken-ham-clarifies-defund-nasas-search-for-alien-life-build-more-creation-museums/

:lol:

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

While science is a limited way of observing/understanding the universe. It is not blind.

 

Extremely limited in some areas.

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

Agreed and in history of the earth.

And when we find out the Book of Mormon history actually is true it will show just how blind they were on the ancient origins and history of the Native Americans here in the Americas.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Agreed and in history of the earth.

 

Which history of the earth are you talking about the whole planet? Then sure there is still plenty to learn. Or are you talking about the general history of specific people(s)?

Edited by thesometimesaint
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

Which history of the earth are you talking about the whole planet? Then sure there is still plenty to learn. Or are you talking about the general history of specific people(s)?

 

At this time I choose not to derail any further.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

And when we find out the Book of Mormon history actually is true it will show just how blind they were on the ancient origins and history of the Native Americans here in the Americas.

 

I have no problem with the historicity of the BoM. I do have problems with certain claims made by believers and nonbelievers alike. IE; That the Book of Mormon is the history of all Native Americans.

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

 

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

Not my attack. Personally; Mr. Ham can believe any silly thing he wants, as long as he lets me believe any silly thing I want. I report what he said you decide.

 

To be fair and balanced Mr. Ham did clarify his statement with

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/31/ken-ham-clarifies-defund-nasas-search-for-alien-life-build-more-creation-museums/

:lol:

 

Like I said, if you honestly think that you reported what he actually said, then I can't help. 

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

I can't help you when you reject it when I do report on what he actually said.

 

Your "report" was your opinion, not what he actually said, as I pointed out, the two quotes are not the same. 

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