Do Christian's have to explain God.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

TheNewDemoman:

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution).

Allow me to educate to the falsity of this:

There are several stages of truth in science, pertaining to the degree to which they encopass phenomena.

The lowest tier, is called a Fact. A fact is a singular, undeniably true repeatable observation. For example, the fact of gravity: I take a ball into my hand, hold my hand upside down and let go of the ball. The ball falls. Fact, or a true observation, of gravity.

The related to a Fact is the Law. A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws describe things, but they do not explain them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

For example, Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton used the mathematical formulas of this to predict the behaviour of falling objects, but could not explain why they fall based on the law. A Law can only ever be based upon a multitude of Facts: this is the phase where a scientist takes multiple observations and describes those observations in a generalized form (such as a mathematical formula).

Next comes a Hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It always makes a prediction, and is always falsifiable based upon that prediction. For example, a Hypothesis of Gravity: "Based upon previous observations, the weight of the object falling seems to have little to no relation to the speed it is falling at. I believe it isn't a factor. Hence, if I drop two objects of different weight but same aerodynamic properties (to eliminate air resistance being a factor), they should fall at exactly the same rate."

A prediction, that is falsifiable - if the objects do not fall at the same rate, the hypothesis is false. However, it can never be proven true: one can never test all the objects of the world and drop them simultaneously to see if they fall at the same rate.

But to the contrary, the following is not a hypothesis: "Invisible, intangible, inaudible gravity elves drag objects to the ground, to make it appear as if they are falling." How would one go about disproving those gravity elves? What observation possibly could falsify this statement? The answer is none, which is why the statement isn't a hypothesis.

The last, and greatest, degree of truth and certainty is a Theory: Only the most rigidly examined subjects can ever have a Theory. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing, while providing an explanation to the mechanism of the phenomena. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it, because if it didn't have mountains of evidence to back it up it would still be a hypothesis. Therefore, like hypothesis, Theories can be disproven with but a single contrary fact, but never proven. Scientific theories include the Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory Of Gravity, Theories of Special And general Relativity, The Germ Theory Of Disease and the Theory Of Evolution.

Evolution belongs to all of the above. There are undeniable observations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There are varying hypothesis. One of these is that we will never find a modern bunny rabbit in the cambrian period - because bunnies are a modern branch of evolution that did not exist back then. Hence, finding a 500 million year old fossil of a bunny rabbit would instantly throw a very big wrench to the wheels of evolutionary theory.

It is also a Theory, as it is a unified, well explored field of science that encompasses a multitude of repeated observations, explanatory mechanisms and hypothesis - all of which have withstood every single test thrown at them without failing a single one.

Let me state two things before I get going:
1. I'm not a Christian. Religious, yes, but not Christian.
2. If you keep your religion to yourself, I don't believe that you should ever have to explain or justify it if you don't want to. If you try preaching to other people, however, you should be prepared to explain things to other people's satisfaction. So, if you keep to yourself and don't force your religion down other people's throats, disregard pretty much everything I'm about to say.

Modern Christianity presents itself as the only truth and the answer to everything. The being said, there shouldn't be any questions that the Bible can't answer. Also, since one's status with God determines one's eternal damnation or salvation (I understand that the actual natures of Heaven and Hell are open to debate, but I'm generalizing for the sake of getting to the point quicker), absolutely every conceivable thing should be covered in the accompanying scriptures.

It's entirely true that science can't quite explain the workings of the universe, but science also doesn't presume to tell us where we go after death (okay, some people like to present the "nowhere" theory based on evidence and our understanding of things) or how the things we do now might lead to our eternal punishment.

Also, science is subject to change. Scientists are constantly trying to figure things out, and old theories get thrown out with new evidence. Religion isn't exactly known for changing and updating with the times (what does the Bible say about internet porn?).

Furthermore, science is something that we all take part in (I'm using "science" as a catch-all term for all schools of science as well as a label for people who see the universe as a system of physical laws with no divine or unexplainable component). After all, we're all using the internet right now, and computers weren't explained or predicted in any of the world's major holy texts. If we get sick, most of go to the doctor for treatment; sure, some people may also pray to their deity of choice for healing, but that's usually after taking a dose of science with dinner.

I'm mostly speaking for myself and from personal experience here, but this is how I see the "science vs. religion" dichotomy:

Science: We don't know exactly how things work, but we've got this much figured out, and we'll let you know when we find more.

Religion: We know exactly how everything works, even though we can't really see any of it and can't present any solid evidence.

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my previous statements. As I said before, I am religious, but I'm willing to accept that my beliefs are personal, that I have no idea how the universe really works, and that I could be very, very wrong. If someone asks me about my beliefs, I'll gladly describe them, but I will never presume that my path is the path that will determine everyone's final destiny. Also, I am equally thankful to science for everything it has done to make my life better, and I understand that things which may be in the real of the supernatural or impossible today may be explained scientifically tomorrow.

TheNewDemoman:
Ok, this is mainly a question for other Christians.

Do we have to explain God.
God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process

Why do we have to explain God?

Before we even begin discussion. THIS IS NOT a forum discussing the validity or falsity of God's existance. Let us not get bogged down in deep theology

Aka. Let us abort all babies so they can go to heaven. (Seriously?!)

Oh god, i think i am being trolled.

Lets break down your very ill conceived argument:

1. Its called the big bang theory because scientist are still working on it, trying to see if the theoretically-positive hypothesis can be applied to nature and repeated. So if you were to ask a theoretical scientist (people who study these kinds of things) he would explain it to you, but seeing as you have the intelligence of Carl[1], i doubt you would understand it in the slightest.[2]

2. Evolution is fact, ask a biologist or read a book. I do not see why i have to explain something as established as evolution to someone whose reality-distortion field protects him from any and all knowledge.[3]

3. Holy fucking shit, Bird-men?. After reading your post there are only 2 options: You are either a troll or incredibly stupid. Pick one.

4.
"Why do we have to explain God?"
-How do you know whether or not god exists?
"Because the bible says so"
-How do you know if the bible is correct?
"Because its written by god"
-How do you know its written by god?
"Because the bible says so".[4]

And on and on the circle logic goes, shielding any and all true believers from the DANGERS of critical thinking and objective evaluation.

TheNewDemoman:

Pascal's Wager applies for me, and if has logical flaws so what. The basics still apply.

Pascal's wager, eh? I always love the opportunity to use this quote from a Terry Pratchett book:

A philosopher claimed, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When the philosopher died, "he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, 'We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...'"

So you're basiclly saying this.
"We can't proove how god works, here's how he works!".
And why do you have to give solid explanations behind your belief?
Ah here's why.
Because we like it.
Yes, we like pissing on people that think that the planet was created 4000 years ago and yes, we like pissing on people that say that fossils were the work of the devil.
And yes, we like making fun of the Adam and Eve and apple story.
We just like making fun of illogical people, why? Because it's fun and atheists are evil!
Now to believe in all that crap, then you have to ignore almost EVERYTHING which consists of logic or even reasoning, because you need blind faith to follow someone who doesn't exist and saying that he exist "somewere else" is if I would say "God exists in your head doesn't he?".

TheNewDemoman:

Why do we have to explain God?

You don't have to explain God. I respect your belief in it.

Unless you want me to believe in it too. Then some explanation will be required.

Christians should not have to explain God as it is all about belief whereas science is about what is factual they are both completely separate things. One to cover the intellectual side of man and the other covers the spiritual. I tend to think many atheists just get frustrated because science is factual and religion is not so they find that believers (Christians, Jews, Muslims etc) are being idiotic by disregarding the facts and settling for the unprovable and thus use this to their advantage by asking Christians to explain God. As they know they cannot and this puts them in a more intelligent light. I am not saying all Christians and atheists act like this I am just working on the more common and vocal of the two groups.

Aiden_the-Joker1:
Christians should not have to explain God as it is all about belief whereas science is about what is factual they are both completely separate things. One to cover the intellectual side of man and the other covers the spiritual.

I agree they are completely separate.

I tend to think many atheists just get frustrated because science is factual and religion is not so they find that believers (Christians, Jews, Muslims etc) are being idiotic by disregarding the facts and settling for the unprovable and thus use this to their advantage by asking Christians to explain God. As they know they cannot and this puts them in a more intelligent light.

This is bullshit. The reason atheists are pissed is because religion thinks it can use its spirituality to force its ways where its not welcome. If spirituality and logical reality are separate then why does spirituality have a say in reality while logic has no say in the spiritual aspect?

They are two sides of the same coin. If someones beliefs have an impact in reality then they damn well better be prepared for our reality to have an impact on their beliefs. If they are unwilling to prove god while trying to apply him to reality then anything they say can and should be disregarded.

I am not saying all Christians and atheists act like this I am just working on the more common and vocal of the two groups.

I don't see how from random posts from atheists you came to the conclusion that we somehow feel confused and need a superiority complex to dislike the religion.

HontooNoNeko:

Aiden_the-Joker1:
Christians should not have to explain God as it is all about belief whereas science is about what is factual they are both completely separate things. One to cover the intellectual side of man and the other covers the spiritual.

I agree they are completely separate.

I tend to think many atheists just get frustrated because science is factual and religion is not so they find that believers (Christians, Jews, Muslims etc) are being idiotic by disregarding the facts and settling for the unprovable and thus use this to their advantage by asking Christians to explain God. As they know they cannot and this puts them in a more intelligent light.

This is bullshit. The reason atheists are pissed is because religion thinks it can use its spirituality to force its ways where its not welcome. If spirituality and logical reality are separate then why does spirituality have a say in reality while logic has no say in the spiritual aspect?

They are two sides of the same coin. If someones beliefs have an impact in reality then they damn well better be prepared for our reality to have an impact on their beliefs. If they are unwilling to prove god while trying to apply him to reality then anything they say can and should be disregarded.

I am not saying all Christians and atheists act like this I am just working on the more common and vocal of the two groups.

I don't see how from random posts from atheists you came to the conclusion that we somehow feel confused and need a superiority complex to dislike the religion.

I was actually talking about how my atheist friends view religion really. My friends are all annoyed by Christians who disregard facts and intelligent theories that disagree with their religion. My friends see it as a very backward notion. What I was meaning was that some atheists (including my friends) are annoyed that some Christians ask them to explain theories, such as evolution and their answers are then thought to be idiotic as they are not 100% proven so they respond the same way asking them to explain God and how God is not 100% proven. Sorry If I annoyed you but I was just going on how all my atheist friends feel. I like your point though on them being two sides of a coin and how reality should affect their beliefs if they want beliefs to affect reality.

Matt_LRR:

TheNewDemoman:
Ok, this is mainly a question for other Christians.

Do we have to explain God.
God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

You realize you just said "we can't know anything about how god works, but here's how god works"... right?

If you want to make claims about the reality and moral authority of god, and even moreso if you want to enact those moral standards in such a way that they effect others who do not subscribe to your beliefs, you need to be able to explain the validity of those moral standards. If you can not describe god, how can you reasonably assert any authority of god?

TheNewDemoman:
Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang,

The big bang isn't biology, and isn't realted to evolution. Evolution is the biological process by which complex life arose on the planet.

The big bang is a cosmological event that produced the universe as we know it. It is the domain of physicists, cosmologists, and mathemeaticians. Not biologists.

TheNewDemoman:
nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

This is, frankly, full of shit.

Science does have a very firm grasp of the inner workings of evloution, from how DNA mutates to create phenotype changes to how those phenotype changes lead to reproductive advantage/disadvantage. We know how speciation works. We can trace evolutionary lines back millions of years. We can trace anscestory via genetic markers. we can identify branch points along the evolutionary tree that led to the rise of every known species on earth. we can demonstrate evolutionary cange in a lab. we've been using these principles knowingly or unknowingly to domesticate animals, and create more hardy crops since we as a species learned agriculture.

TheNewDemoman:
If they can not explain a natural process

We can.

TheNewDemoman:
Why do we have to explain God?

because if you're going to assert that something is real, and that it should have an effect on other people, you should be able to explain what that thing is and how it works.

Otherwise you're [largely] pulling shit out of your ass, and chalking it up to "interpretation" and "god's mysterious ways". By asserting anything about what god says or does, you are laying claim to an understandig of the workings of god. If you cannot then describe those workings - what validity do your assertions hold?

-m

I'm glad you exist.

Aiden_the-Joker1:
Snip!

Ah sorry if I sounded irritated I was a bit of an ass.(ok total ass) I assumed you were using the word common in place of majority and associating it with posts on boards that can not accurately convey emotional responses instead of real life scenarios. I made a rash judgment and over reacted I have no excuse and I apologize for my rude behavior.

TheNewDemoman:

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

I don't recall eating no sacred fruit.

MARKMCMARCUS:

TheNewDemoman:

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

I don't recall eating no sacred fruit.

I also seem to remember we didn't understand what good and evil was before it was eaten

I wish that I had the knowledge to debunk any BS in the world, starting here.

TheNewDemoman:

Why do we have to explain God?

Ok, lets first answer this question before moving on. You have to explain God depending on the context of the discussion/debate. If at the beginning of the discussion you assume God exists (as the title and the entity) then you don't have to explain God at all. If you are talking to someone you want to convert, then the person you are talking to should know what she is getting into. So, in that instance you would explain God. The next example is the tricky one. If someone is attack one of the O's that make the title of God, you need to defend and explain God. You don't get anywhere with anyone by just going "He's God. There's nothing more to it"(I see three logical fallacies at a glance which nobody will take seriously). Let me see if I can rephrase your question: Why do "evolutionists" need to explain evolution? It just is a fact of life. There is a book about it and everything! See how that doesn't work? If you attack something about evolution like the "lack of evidence" (which I will get to in a moment), then we will explain it and defend it. If (for sake of example) I say God isn't Omni-benevolent because God allows evil to exist then you will explain that Eve sinned first and since GOd is such a cool cat he rolled with it. Make sense?

TheNewDemoman:

See Matt I like you you make statments and make no evidence.

How can we repeat a simple organism, evolving into something complex? Sure birds beaks change, dogs get longer coats, but do they start reading Aristotle and studying physics.

No.

There is no scientfic evidence for evolution. You just see something miniscule, and then create something massive out of it. So if I can lift over 100 Lbs, I am then super man right. Because something small CAN BE something big, if you think like that

Ok, now we tackle this beast.

Ok, there are four ways we can gather evidence for evolution. The driving force is basically natural selection. Certain bacteria can get through three generations in an hour. We can easily watch bacteria adapt to its surroundings since they can go through 13,000 generations in 6 months. We can actually see natural selection taking place right now. If you have been anywhere near the world of medicine in the passed few years, then you know that bacteria are getting too resistant to our antibiotics. That is way number one.

Way number two is looking at DNA. As we know DNA is the driving force for making you, you. Now, the part of DNA that makes you you is a little less than .1% of your total DNA. Now you share 98% of your DNA with a chimpanzee. Now there are about 3x10^9(3e9) base pairs in your DNA. Which means 2.94e9 base pairs are exactly the same in humans as in chimps. That must mean the DNA came from a common place. Since DNA is passed from mother to child then there must be a common ancestor in the passed between chimps and humans. Fun fact, 60% of you DNA is the same as a fruit fly while 50% of your DNA is the same as a banana.

Number three. Animals today seem to have more complex/better characteristics of fossils of the near past. You can see the same thing with fossils from different time periods. Sorry this is so short, this is a pretty basic concept.

Way number four is the flimsiest I will admit but it is valid. We can look at embryos of other animals. The older the embryos are while still looking the same then the closer they are related. If you look at a 3-month-old human fetus(I think that time frame is correct) and a chicken embryo at the same relative time in the gestation period they will look the same. If you look at a very early human embryo it will look like a fish embryo.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. You are just concentrating on evidence that can't be observed in our lifetime.

aPod:

I believe in evolution, but Matt or anyone here, have they found verifiable evidence of macro evoltution? One species changing so dramatically it becomes a whole new species? I'm saying i disagree i'm just saying i'm out of the loop and i'd be curious to know that.

Ok, look at this grey scale.

Matt_LRR:
Post about Lenski's experiments

I almost uttered a little girlish squeel when I read about that experiment in The Greatest Show on Earth. You are awesomely rational, and I can't recall any position you have taken on these forums that is actually assailable. I can only strive to emulate your methods. Will you be my friend? :>

crudus:

Ok, look at this grey scale.

Yes it make's sense to me. Actually the video Marik help had a similar although easier to look at example when it portrayed to word head and only changing one letter how many different words you can end up with.

Thank you for your example though it was also helpful.

Heh, someone appears to have posted poor NewDemoMan to FSTDT.

Internet celebrity beckons!

shreedder:

MARKMCMARCUS:

TheNewDemoman:

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

I don't recall eating no sacred fruit.

I also seem to remember we didn't understand what good and evil was before it was eaten

It's pretty much the equivalent of a parent putting an toddler's hand on a stove burner for being "naughty."

If God does exist and is as described in the Bible, he's a fucking prick and I wouldn't worship him if you promised me 1000 eternal afterlives.

TheNewDemoman:

There is no scientfic evidence for evolution.

Yes there is. You just choose to ignore it.

2012 Wont Happen:

TheNewDemoman:

Why do we have to explain God?

You don't have to explain God. I respect your belief in it.

Unless you want me to believe in it too. Then some explanation will be required.

A very reasonable approach.

ravensheart18:

2012 Wont Happen:

TheNewDemoman:

Why do we have to explain God?

You don't have to explain God. I respect your belief in it.

Unless you want me to believe in it too. Then some explanation will be required.

A very reasonable approach.

Although I would suggest in general beliefs do not by default warrant respect - if it is someone sincere belief that say cannibalizing another person and eating their brains for the purpose of gaining their wisdom/prowess/knowledge I would not seek to let them have that belief unopposed but try to show them why that belief is harmful and incorrect (extreme example I know). If someone has certain beliefs whilst I may not necessary respect the beliefs I try my best to respect the person although some beliefs I would say automatically remove the need to respect someone - e.g X group should be killed because of [insert fundamentally flawed reasoning].

By the way I am surprised this thread hasn't been victim to Godwins law yet - 3 pages that must be a new record for the R&P forums.

Edit: Spelling and Grammar >:(

coolicus:

By the way I am surprised this thread hasn't been victim to Godwins law yet - 3 pages that must be a new record for the R&P forums.

Thats what !HITLER! said!

j/k plx dont ban :<

coolicus:

TheNewDemoman:

coolicus:
-snip v3.0-

-the all important snip-

That was both articulate, brutal and correct. I love this post so much.

OT: Man, I was too late to correct the OP on every single point ... and since I can't be stuffed reading the entire thread, and since I haven't read it yet, I have one thing to add.

TheNewDemoman:
-snip-

If we take the genesis story metaphorically to this extent.
1. Humanity was created without knowledge of good and evil.
2. Through disobeying God, humanity gained understanding of good and evil.
3. For disobeying God, we were kicked out of paradise (or some equivalent downfall).

Now here's the thing, if we didn't understand good and evil before we disobeyed God, then there is no way for us to have understood that obeying God was a good thing and disobeying him was bad. Every order God gave us before we sinned was effectively just white-noise; without a means by which to judge the value of an action (morality) what incentive did we have to not eat the fruit/sin/whatever?

As it stands, the situation is this. Humanity, lacking any understanding of good and evil, was put within reach of sin (the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the story), along with a white-noise order to not sin and the addition of a tempter (the snake, or Lilith or whichever version you follow). Even a half-arsed psychology drop out could see that we'd end up sinning in almost every possible outcome, so how is it that a being of infinite intelligence/knowledge/'whatever God is' could not know this would happen? The answer is, God couldn't have been ignorant to the 'near-guaranteed outcome', meaning if God does exist He Fucking Set Us Up To Fail!

He's either an Arse-Hole not worthy of the dirt beneath your fingernails, or he's a brain-dead moron, meaning he's closer to a non-sentient cluster-f**k of energy than a deity. Alternatively, your proposed deity doesn't exist.

Oh yeah, just a little elaboration, if you are a 'true Christian' then you should be following Judaism with a side-belief in Christ. Because if God is so bleeding perfect, than he would've gotten the message right the first time, so any additional messages/changes to the original text are actually distortions of God's message. So not only is your proposed deity self-defeating, he's also the wrong interpretation of the actual deity!

And yes, to anyone actually reading my rant, the religiously ignorant frustrate me. I have no issues with the religious, but shit like this really irritates me, so I apologise for any harsh words I may have said

Bout the thing that black and white proves evolution, I think that's bs. They're still the same race, they're still humans. They have not become another race. And when some scientists tried to mutate banana flies, they found that the DNA has some strict rules of how mch it can change. And the DNA will returned to the original after a few generations.

The original humans knew that eating from the tree was bad. He also made them perfect, better than any of us so that they could control themselves if they wanted to without error.
And, Judaism was supposed to bring up to Christianity. Almost everything in Judaism was symbolic for Christ (like the sacrifices of animals, the temple).
AND GOD SAID THAT EATING FROM THE TREE WOULD RESULT IN THEIR DEATH!

Infested One:
Bout the thing that black and white proves evolution, I think that's bs. They're still the same race, they're still humans. They have not become another race.

Adaptation without speciation is part of evolution.

And when some scientists tried to mutate banana flies, they found that the DNA has some strict rules of how mch it can change. And the DNA will returned to the original after a few generations.

Cite the study, please. If it's the one I'm thinking of, creationists misinterpreted the hell out of that one - as usual....

The original humans knew that eating from the tree was bad. He also made them perfect, better than any of us so that they could control themselves if they wanted to without error.

No, they were created "very good", according to the Bible, not "perfect".

And there's no point claiming they knew that eating from the tree was bad when they could only actually know that something was bad UPON eating from the tree. It was an uninformed choice, but you can't even call it a choice seeing as God in his omniscience made them knowing exactly how they'd respond.

And, Judaism was supposed to bring up to Christianity. Almost everything in Judaism was symbolic for Christ (like the sacrifices of animals, the temple).

It's typically held the sacrificial system was actually God's dictated mechanism of mankind's atonement and could not be carried out otherwise (feck knows why) and that Jesus was the ultimate final sacrifice for universally available atonement.

Quite frankly, if God requires several hundred generations of blood sacrifice to teach mankind a simple analogy, I'm wondering what kind of numpties he thinks we are.

AND GOD SAID THAT EATING FROM THE TREE WOULD RESULT IN THEIR DEATH!

(Allcaps is shouting and thus impolite)

Again, how are you going to comprehend what death is if you've never seen anything like it before?

Oirish_Martin:

Infested One:
Bout the thing that black and white proves evolution, I think that's bs. They're still the same race, they're still humans. They have not become another race.

Adaptation without speciation is part of evolution.

And when some scientists tried to mutate banana flies, they found that the DNA has some strict rules of how mch it can change. And the DNA will returned to the original after a few generations.

Cite the study, please. If it's the one I'm thinking of, creationists misinterpreted the hell out of that one - as usual....

The original humans knew that eating from the tree was bad. He also made them perfect, better than any of us so that they could control themselves if they wanted to without error.

No, they were created "very good", according to the Bible, not "perfect".

And there's no point claiming they knew that eating from the tree was bad when they could only actually know that something was bad UPON eating from the tree. It was an uninformed choice, but you can't even call it a choice seeing as God in his omniscience made them knowing exactly how they'd respond.

And, Judaism was supposed to bring up to Christianity. Almost everything in Judaism was symbolic for Christ (like the sacrifices of animals, the temple).

It's typically held the sacrificial system was actually God's dictated mechanism of mankind's atonement and could not be carried out otherwise (feck knows why) and that Jesus was the ultimate final sacrifice for universally available atonement.

Quite frankly, if God requires several hundred generations of blood sacrifice to teach mankind a simple analogy, I'm wondering what kind of numpties he thinks we are.

AND GOD SAID THAT EATING FROM THE TREE WOULD RESULT IN THEIR DEATH!

(Allcaps is shouting and thus impolite)

Again, how are you going to comprehend what death is if you've never seen anything like it before?

I smell a poe.

Infested One:
The original humans knew that eating from the tree was bad. He also made them perfect, better than any of us so that they could control themselves if they wanted to without error.
And, Judaism was supposed to bring up to Christianity. Almost everything in Judaism was symbolic for Christ (like the sacrifices of animals, the temple).
AND GOD SAID THAT EATING FROM THE TREE WOULD RESULT IN THEIR DEATH!

The tree in the story was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" indicating once they ate the fruit they would have knowledge of good and evil which they were lacking. Most Jews take it as a metaphor so why don't you differ to them - it is their book after all. If he made them perfect they would be without the capacity to sin - like you suppose your God to be. Yaweh also sent a bear to rip apart 42 kids who called a prophet bald - what is your point? And I believe he said "on the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" which apologetics have said was a spiritual death.

Evolution is an observable fact - both macro and micro arguing against evolution is as stupid as arguing against gravity or the germ theory of disease it is just more acceptable.

Go to www.talkorigins.org and you will find all the proofs of evolution you need :).

Also there is a youtube series by AronRa that explains evolution very well whilst highlighting the flaws and falsehoods of creationism/intelligent design.

TheNewDemoman:

stinkychops:
Why do you have to explain god?

Would there be any Christians if 'Jesus' had not done so originally? Would it have survived if the people he told not passed on the 'information'?

You don't have to, you do if you want Christianity to spread. Which for some, sad, reason you do.

"Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process"

Why not a smart bird race? Crows are smart.

However it follows logic. Having a brain requires lots of blood, lots of energy and lots of heat. Being covered in feathers is not a good factor for getting rid of heat. Furthermore birds must be small, reducing the amount of blood. Light, reducing bone density. Overall, what use would birds have for our brains? Without hands they cannot put it to much use.

No. We EVOLVED to be this way. This means there was a progression from no brain to brain. It doesn't have to be the best possible creature, in fact signs of our imperfections demonstrate evolution. All a creature has to do is survive.

The big bang is well founded. Evolution is well founded (we've proven it in regards to small organisms, why does this not constitute large organisms).

Evolution will be proven if we live long enough anyway.

Why do you feel the need to disagree with what are incredibly well proven, logical theories? Why do you take the biased view that you must see the world through your religion and interpret the facts accordingly? Are you worried your religion will not stand up to reality?

No?

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution).

The Big Bang did happen -_- I am not denying this.

And if we evolve well guess what throw a f***ing parade.

This has probably already been said, and you probably won't listen anyway, but it annoys me so much I'm going to say it myself.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, and that fundamental misunderstanding is what is preventing you from seeing the mountains of evidence which sit right in front of you on the interwebs.

A scientific Law is not a progression of a scientific Theory. A scientific Law is simply an observed constant, ie, no matter how we measure a particular thing, or what experiment we subject it to, certain facts will remain unchanged.

Scientific Theories explain scientific Laws, as well as other observed facts and experimental evidence. First, you create a Hypothesis(which is more equivalent to the conventional understanding of the word "theory", as in "I have a theory about why Malcolm is late for work"), then you test every aspect of that Hypothesis. Either it passes those tests, or you go back to the drawing board. After you think your Hypothesis is sound and explains everything you set out to explain, you throw it to the wolves.

What do I mean by that? Well, you publish it, and other scientists attempt to tear it to bits. They will test what you tested, repeat your experiments under the same conditions to check your results, and propose alternative explanations. You must then defend your work, and show it to be correct(to whatever value of "correct" is possible using the available evidence), and if you can't? Back to the drawing board again. Most Hypotheses never make it past this point, hell, the vast vast majority don't even make it out of the originator's notebooks, they prove their own ideas wrong.

Even if your Hypothesis succeeds this stage, and is accepted as the prevailing Theory which explains all the available evidence and functions according to related Laws, it does not become a monolithic and unchanging edifice, accepted as dogma by the high priests of science for all time. Theories are challenged every single time a new piece of evidence is discovered, they are amended, modified, altered and even completely overturned in favour of a better Hypothesis all the time.

The reason people are so dismissive of your opinions on Evolution is not because they are dogmatic "Evolutionists"(a nonsense word created by Creationists to try and drag scientists down to their level), it's because you don't have a clue about Evolution. The Theory of Evolution has stood for over 150 years despite being subjected to the process I have described above. It has been amended to include new information, but that new information has supported the original core propositions. The fossil record, DNA, genes, lab work with bacteria, even animal husbandry, all conform to and enhance our understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

We have a more comprehensive understanding of Evolution than we do of Gravity!

So, please, next time you feel the need to use the term "Evolutionist", or have a rant about how Evolution is "just a theory", remember that a scientific Theory is not simply an idea that sounds cool, it is a construct which explains vast troves of evidence, observation and experimentation, and which has stood rigorous scrutiny over many years.

I couldn't care less why you believe in God.

My problem is when people who believe in God try to inflict their beliefs on those who don't. I'm speaking primarily about right wing lunatic politicians who try to make laws based on their beliefs that affect everyone.

sosolidshoe:

TheNewDemoman:

stinkychops:
Why do you have to explain god?

Would there be any Christians if 'Jesus' had not done so originally? Would it have survived if the people he told not passed on the 'information'?

You don't have to, you do if you want Christianity to spread. Which for some, sad, reason you do.

"Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process"

Why not a smart bird race? Crows are smart.

However it follows logic. Having a brain requires lots of blood, lots of energy and lots of heat. Being covered in feathers is not a good factor for getting rid of heat. Furthermore birds must be small, reducing the amount of blood. Light, reducing bone density. Overall, what use would birds have for our brains? Without hands they cannot put it to much use.

No. We EVOLVED to be this way. This means there was a progression from no brain to brain. It doesn't have to be the best possible creature, in fact signs of our imperfections demonstrate evolution. All a creature has to do is survive.

The big bang is well founded. Evolution is well founded (we've proven it in regards to small organisms, why does this not constitute large organisms).

Evolution will be proven if we live long enough anyway.

Why do you feel the need to disagree with what are incredibly well proven, logical theories? Why do you take the biased view that you must see the world through your religion and interpret the facts accordingly? Are you worried your religion will not stand up to reality?

No?

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution).

The Big Bang did happen -_- I am not denying this.

And if we evolve well guess what throw a f***ing parade.

This has probably already been said, and you probably won't listen anyway, but it annoys me so much I'm going to say it myself.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, and that fundamental misunderstanding is what is preventing you from seeing the mountains of evidence which sit right in front of you on the interwebs.

A scientific Law is not a progression of a scientific Theory. A scientific Law is simply an observed constant, ie, no matter how we measure a particular thing, or what experiment we subject it to, certain facts will remain unchanged.

Scientific Theories explain scientific Laws, as well as other observed facts and experimental evidence. First, you create a Hypothesis(which is more equivalent to the conventional understanding of the word "theory", as in "I have a theory about why Malcolm is late for work"), then you test every aspect of that Hypothesis. Either it passes those tests, or you go back to the drawing board. After you think your Hypothesis is sound and explains everything you set out to explain, you throw it to the wolves.

What do I mean by that? Well, you publish it, and other scientists attempt to tear it to bits. They will test what you tested, repeat your experiments under the same conditions to check your results, and propose alternative explanations. You must then defend your work, and show it to be correct(to whatever value of "correct" is possible using the available evidence), and if you can't? Back to the drawing board again. Most Hypotheses never make it past this point, hell, the vast vast majority don't even make it out of the originator's notebooks, they prove their own ideas wrong.

Even if your Hypothesis succeeds this stage, and is accepted as the prevailing Theory which explains all the available evidence and functions according to related Laws, it does not become a monolithic and unchanging edifice, accepted as dogma by the high priests of science for all time. Theories are challenged every single time a new piece of evidence is discovered, they are amended, modified, altered and even completely overturned in favour of a better Hypothesis all the time.

The reason people are so dismissive of your opinions on Evolution is not because they are dogmatic "Evolutionists"(a nonsense word created by Creationists to try and drag scientists down to their level), it's because you don't have a clue about Evolution. The Theory of Evolution has stood for over 150 years despite being subjected to the process I have described above. It has been amended to include new information, but that new information has supported the original core propositions. The fossil record, DNA, genes, lab work with bacteria, even animal husbandry, all conform to and enhance our understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

We have a more comprehensive understanding of Evolution than we do of Gravity!

So, please, next time you feel the need to use the term "Evolutionist", or have a rant about how Evolution is "just a theory", remember that a scientific Theory is not simply an idea that sounds cool, it is a construct which explains vast troves of evidence, observation and experimentation, and which has stood rigorous scrutiny over many years.

all that work and you could have just posted this flowchart of scientific method vs religious method :P

image

adamtm:
all that work and you could have just posted this flowchart of scientific method vs religious method :P

Your prejudice is showing. Not all religions ignore scientific evidence. Many embrace it. Understanding the Universe better, including tossing out misunderstandings you had based on past religious understadings, is considered a blessing in a number of religions.

Yes, I know there are people and religions that are closed minded, but silly charts like that don't make you look smart, they make you look bigotted.

Are you kidding? If you believe something and expect other people to believe it as well, you're dam right you've got to justify it. Every scientific theory you mentioned was picked apart and scrutinized for decades before it was accepted and yet when some ejit beating a bible on the street is going on about his imaginary friend we're just supposed to take his word for it?
To that I say take your double standard and shove it.
(don't even get me started on the pitch black take on morality associated with you're belief system)

ravensheart18:

adamtm:
all that work and you could have just posted this flowchart of scientific method vs religious method :P

Your prejudice is showing. Not all religions ignore scientific evidence. Many embrace it. Understanding the Universe better, including tossing out misunderstandings you had based on past religious understadings, is considered a blessing in a number of religions.

Yes, I know there are people and religions that are closed minded, but silly charts like that don't make you look smart, they make you look bigotted.

If you want to better understand the universe then what's the point of being religious? Religion is just a devise that people use to pretend they understand. If you examine the evidence that is available faith becomes unnecessary.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked