ADVERTISEMENT

A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
They are molecules that contain carbon, not just carbon, which makes them organic molecules,
Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
They are molecules that contain carbon, not just carbon, which makes them organic molecules,
Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing.

Alright, I was going to withdraw from this thread because it was obviously going no where, but I cannot let such idiocy like this post go by.

There is nothing "reproductive" about exhaling CO2. It takes millions and millions of years for those organic molecules to continue on the path to life, it isn't something that just happens over night. Something that is improbable in a few hundred years, can become likely in a few million. Furthermore, it takes certain conditions for those molecules to form more complex molecules. The conditions on Earths surface are no longer suitable for these molecules to form, we have to use early Earth conditions to do this. Those same conditions are found on Saturns moon Titan. Titan is covered in complex organic molecules,link, which helps to show that these molecules form commonly throughout the universe.


This post was edited on 3/5 2:50 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
""Consciousness" is one of the results of the complexity of the brain. And I did not use it."

Yes, and by arguing the brain is too complex to have arisen through natural selection, you also argue our conscious is to complex to have arisen naturally. Brain=consciousness. Complex brain like our own = impossible through natural selection = consciousness like ours impossible through natural selection. Your argument is the argument for consciousness, you just choose to say the brain is too complex instead of the consciousness, but they are really one in the same.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
""Consciousness" is one of the results of the complexity of the brain. And I did not use it."

Yes, and by arguing the brain is too complex to have arisen through natural selection, you also argue our conscious is to complex to have arisen naturally. Brain=consciousness. Complex brain like our own = impossible through natural selection = consciousness like ours impossible through natural selection. Your argument is the argument for consciousness, you just choose to say the brain is too complex instead of the consciousness, but they are really one in the same.

so much for your last post in this thread. good thing you are a man of your word.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Ok, this time its my last post, I have a class to attend.
This time? Oh, I see. The other post didn't mean what you said.

Class? Here, let me visualize.

260px-German_Troops_In_Warsaw.jpg


/images/smilie2.gif

Sometimes what you intend to do changes when certain conditions change.

It was actually a political behavior class that tries to explain why people act the way they do in politics. Where do they get their beliefs and how do they hold onto them? How and why do certain groups influence us more than others? What happens when our beliefs are tested? "Us" vs "Them" situations. Pretty interesting class.
 
Originally posted by LDS69:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
""Consciousness" is one of the results of the complexity of the brain. And I did not use it."

Yes, and by arguing the brain is too complex to have arisen through natural selection, you also argue our conscious is to complex to have arisen naturally. Brain=consciousness. Complex brain like our own = impossible through natural selection = consciousness like ours impossible through natural selection. Your argument is the argument for consciousness, you just choose to say the brain is too complex instead of the consciousness, but they are really one in the same.

so much for your last post in this thread. good thing you are a man of your word.

I can't let idiocy slide like that, especially when it attacks a scientific fact such as evolution.

Also, the post was meant as a "this thread is going nowhere, so lets stop," kind of post. It didn't stop, so I came back after I attended my class. If you have a problem with that and it somehow doesn't make me a "man of my word" because I responded to another post, go ahead and have that opinion, doesn't bother me.
This post was edited on 3/5 3:07 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Since you're such a stickler for facts 1986, then I guess you would appreciate the presentation of circumstantial evidence. After all, you say evolution is a fact, in spite of the conundrum of irreducible complexity, and even mutation as a challenge to "advancement".

Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences writes in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88: "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

But I'm not here to debate evolution since I haven't taken the time to study it fully or comprehend the science behind it, I'll leave that to others with more time and (ahem) greater intellect.

However as you seem to think that facts are especially relevant in making the argument for any position debated, I'll present some facts. This taken directly from a book that I read over 25 years ago, Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell:

"The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, ‘we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th the power." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10 to the 17th power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."
Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power, or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 000,000,000."

The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10 to the 79th power. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident. He was who He said He was: the only way.

In regards to my first paragraph regarding circumstantial evidence, Jesus Christ was verified as having died on the cross by the Roman soldiers and by those who prepared his body for burial. You can imagine the uproar if the Romans hadn't confirmed his death and then guarded the tomb he was laid in. Taking into account that this was a fact, he was then seen by hundreds of followers after his death and resurrection. The evidence of eyewitness accounts is overwhelming. Even the Arabic translations of the historian Josephus concerning Jesus supports the eyewitness accounts.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
""Consciousness" is one of the results of the complexity of the brain. And I did not use it."

Yes, and by arguing the brain is too complex to have arisen through natural selection, you also argue our conscious is to complex to have arisen naturally. Brain=consciousness. Complex brain like our own = impossible through natural selection = consciousness like ours impossible through natural selection. Your argument is the argument for consciousness, you just choose to say the brain is too complex instead of the consciousness, but they are really one in the same.
Says you. You're so arrogant now you believe you can tell me which arguments I was bringing forth. LOL.

Sentience is a whole other matter to me, and a good one, since it would be absolutely impossible to happen on its own.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Also, the post was meant as a "this thread is going nowhere, so lets stop," kind of post. It didn't stop, so I came back after I attended my class.
And you are a shameless, bold liar. There was no "lets" to it. You said you would stop. You never said you would stop if I would stop. You said you were done with this thread, that it was your last post in it.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
If you have a problem with that and it somehow doesn't make me a "man of my word" because I responded to another post, go ahead and have that opinion, doesn't bother me.
Somehow? It's not an opinion whether it nullifies you as a man of your word on this specific matter. It is a fact that it does.

Now I see how all this speculation is "fact" to you. "Facts" don't really mean that much to you. They're fluid and thus follows your logic down the same spurious trail.
 
Heres a problem with what you quoted. Its from 1963. Evolution has come a long way since 1963. Another problem stems from the fact that this piece of work is ignoring how easily complex organic molecules are made(at the point this book article was made in 1963 we didn't know this) in the universe. They are abundant everywhere.

As for your argument that it is statistically impossible for evolution to produce self replicating proteins, the article is indeed still way behind back in 1963.

Here is a comment on this from Scientific American:

"8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."

It is not statistically impossible for evolution to occur. Do you have any idea how many stars are in this universe? Hint, there are 300 billion plus in our galaxy, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies. What is statistically improbable for one system, becomes probable when there are many.

Website which goes into more specifies on why Borel's law is wrong.

I'm not even going to deal with "eye witnesses" saw Jesus walk from the dead. There are plenty of eye witnesses that have seen UFO's too. In the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Sadly, there is no good evidence Jesus awoke from the dead, or that he was the son of god, or that his mother was a virgin and somehow got pregnant.
This post was edited on 3/5 7:22 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
""Consciousness" is one of the results of the complexity of the brain. And I did not use it."

Yes, and by arguing the brain is too complex to have arisen through natural selection, you also argue our conscious is to complex to have arisen naturally. Brain=consciousness. Complex brain like our own = impossible through natural selection = consciousness like ours impossible through natural selection. Your argument is the argument for consciousness, you just choose to say the brain is too complex instead of the consciousness, but they are really one in the same.
Says you. You're so arrogant now you believe you can tell me which arguments I was bringing forth. LOL.

Sentience is a whole other matter to me, and a good one, since it would be absolutely impossible to happen on its own.

Yeah I'm arrogant. It isn't my fault you don't even understand your own argument which doesn't surprise me in the least.

LOL, I'm sure you have another special explanation of why it is impossible and I'm sure its not worth entertaining scientifically.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Also, the post was meant as a "this thread is going nowhere, so lets stop," kind of post. It didn't stop, so I came back after I attended my class.
And you are a shameless, bold liar. There was no "lets" to it. You said you would stop. You never said you would stop if I would stop. You said you were done with this thread, that it was your last post in it.


Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
If you have a problem with that and it somehow doesn't make me a "man of my word" because I responded to another post, go ahead and have that opinion, doesn't bother me.
Somehow? It's not an opinion whether it nullifies you as a man of your word on this specific matter. It is a fact that it does.

Now I see how all this speculation is "fact" to you. "Facts" don't really mean that much to you. They're fluid and thus follows your logic down the same spurious trail.

I knew you weren't going to stop, as in you would reply to my posts, but I did figure you would follow suit like me after that, as that is usually how these threads end anyway, and you did for the most part until you threw out that last little post about exhaling CO2, so I chimed back in. There is nothing in my post that was a lie.

LOL now you call it speculation. Thats what theories are, speculation, but intelligent speculation based on facts and evidence. Some of those theories become so solid they become "fact". Something religion doesn't know anything about.
This post was edited on 3/5 11:51 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Some of those theories become some solid they become "fact". Something religion doesn't know anything about.

"Religion" or Christianity?

I'm guessing you don't have enough experience with debating Christianity except through the misinformation you've been fed over your short 20 or so years (1986 is your birth year, right iowahawkeyes1986?).

Come on 1986, show me what you think you know about the FACTS of Christianity. Tell me how you've made a determination that there is no God. Speculation? Theory? A feeling? Scientific proof? Law of averages?
 
There are no facts of Christianity as it pertains to what I'm talking about, which is the orgins of the human species and the universe. I'm sure it has accurate parts about it which deal with completely different things, but when it comes to explanations of our origins, it isn't worth looking at.

I came to the determination that there is no god because using god as an explanation of the universe doesn't fit. Saying that god created the universe only leaves you with the question of what created god? What does it mean to say god doesn't have a creator? Thats non-sense if you are going to argue everything needs a creator, because you just create an infinite regression of what created what. Quantum physics has shown that things happen in this universe all the time with no cause at all on the fundamental atomic level.

Christianity really takes the cake for me in improbability. I take the arguement for a natural god (i.e. god is the laws of the universe which we can never break but can understand, which if there was a god this would be it in my opinion) more seriously than the Christian god. Far to many impossible stories occur in the bible. Noahs Ark, god stopping the sun in the sky, a virgin getting pregnant, a dead man walking, turning cities and people into salt, ect ect ect. There is just no realisitic possibility that any of those things could occur. Then you add into the fact that Bible puts the age of the Earth at 10000 years or less, which is complete nonsense. It explains our orgins as god just spontaneously putting humans on Earth in his image, yet evolution and our very genetic material proves that thats not what happened.

Plus, the argument for god has a major problem. There is no evidence for it. Carl Sagan has a nice comment on this.


"'A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage'

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless..."
 
Dave, sorry I haven't gotten back to this thread. unfortunately, I'm probably going to be too busy this week to really get into this too much after this for the rest of the week. We'll see. Anyway, thanks for that response--the first one you gave to my most recent post.

Because of all of the varying translations there is tremendous variation in interpretation. And the danger, looking at what has happened historically in the Bible's name (and the Koran's), is that those different interpretations have been used to justify all sorts of atrocities over thousands of years. Even now the U.S. is involved in what is essentially a holy war in the Middle East (well, oil's obviously a big issue, too; still, from many Christian and Muslim POVs this is a holy war). Christians vs. Muslims. It's insane.

That, as much as anything else, should give people pause. I think that Hounded's admonition that no human could possibly understand, know, or experience God because of our human limitations should probably also be heeded in terms of biblical interpretations. What amazes me is that people believe with certainty that they possess the ability to accurately comprehend even the biblical representation of God let alone an actual omniscient, omipotent, and omnipresent God.

Even you mentioned that you are fallible in terms of following God perfectly. Yet, despite most Christians' admittance that they imperfectly follow even their own interpretations and understandings of the Bible, I don't witness the same Christian humility in admitting that their understanding of the Bible is probably imperfect. That, more than their actual belief in a supernatural God, is seemingly what causes Christians to act insanely at times. It's astounding how easily Christians become self-righteous (as opposed to righteous) about their interpretations of the Bible, how willing they are to condemn others as if they possess a certain, perfect understanding of God's will. The Muslims do the same thing (and more recently have taken it as far as Christians of past generations did).

It appears to me that much of the animosity of Christians toward Muslims, atheists, abortion rights advocates, etc., is based on emotional volatility rather than a thoughtful, careful, patient, and humble interpretation of the Bible. The Terri Schiavo case is a prime example (noting there are less publiclicized examples every day--on this board alone let alone throughout the country). You can go up and down the line: the hasty insanity of Congress, the frothing of televangelists and leaders of certain religious organizations, blog after blog, message board after message board, from the pulpits, in the pews. So many Christians knew everything there was to know about the case, were absolutely certain that God wanted Terri Schiavoe to have that feeding tube inserted and wanted them to voice their fury with Terri's husband, with the Florida Supreme Court, with the U.S. Supreme Court, with anyone who thought Terri's husband had a legal right to make that decision (regardless of whether they agreed with his decision).

It was so absurd. And disturbing. Why? Because the intensity of the Christian emotional response and fanatical certainty about what God's will for Terri Schiavo was (and their willingness to ignore the law--to demand that Jeb Bush send in the National Guard against the ruling of the courts) were reminiscent of the emotional intensity accompanying the fanatical certainty Southerners used to defend first slavery and more recently racist segregation. It is this absolute "knowing" of Christians and their willingness to ignore reason and law, to throw caution and prudence to the wind, to wail and gnash their teeth at what they perceive as injustices performed against God's will that really makes me sit up and take notice.

The increasing frequency of the mass emotional hysteria of Christians in relation to political events has given me (and probably others, even some Christians) a look at what hysterical fanaticism is. It's been a very gradual process over the past 20-30 years it seems, this most recent "Great Awakening" in American religiosity (as opposed to religiousness) that may or may not have a biblical basis. I have no idea what biblical translations these megachurchers are using to justify inciting their followers to public hysteria and belligerence. Whatever it is, it's not good. For you, it would matter if the biblical verses were accurate or not. To me, the hysteria is the evidence that their interpretations, accurate or not, are the problem.

It's because of this easy manipulation of this ancient document that it's unreliable as a moral guide. For all practical purposes, it leads to more division than anything else simply because it is so often used as an "I'm right, you're wrong" circular, closed-loop justification for just about anything any individual or group wants to use it for. It would not be difficult for me to do the same thing with it. You would argue that I've misinterpreted the Bible, but how would such an argument between us differ from the arguments between Catholics and Protestants or the nearly infinite variations of the Protestant denominations? It wouldn't. I have no doubts that you could cultivate your adherents and I could cultivate mine. And if things went on long enough and beame heated enough perhaps some of our members would clash with one another or maybe one of us would declare the other's view heretical and therefore make the argument that it's justifiable to kill believers of the opposing interpretations to death. That's the history of religious political activism in a nutshell.

And that's why I am more than a little concerned about this new religious "Awakening" in America. It's yet to be seen how far some of these people (spurred on by outspoken rabble-rousers posing as leaders) will go with their newfound born-again political religiosity. It's been surreal thus far.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I knew you weren't going to stop, as in you would reply to my posts, but I did figure you would follow suit like me after that, as that is usually how these threads end anyway, and you did for the most part until you threw out that last little post about exhaling CO2, so I chimed back in. There is nothing in my post that was a lie.
Your statement about nothing in your post being a lie is yet another lie. You said you were done posting in this thread and here you still are. You are a liar. All the spin in the world will not change that.



Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Also, this is going to be my last reply in this thread.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Ok, this time its my last post . . .




This post was edited on 3/6 9:54 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
I can't let idiocy slide like that, especially when it attacks a scientific fact such as evolution.

a scientific "fact"? how old are you? have you ever actually studied science in school? do you understand the difference between a "fact" and a "theory"?
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yeah I'm arrogant. It isn't my fault you don't even understand your own argument which doesn't surprise me in the least.
This is just more arrogance from you. You now not only tell another poster what his argument is, but you now additionally tell him you understand his argument better than he does.

Right. You sound like the typical cocky college kid that thinks he knows everything since he's had a couple classes.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
The flaw in this is so simple I'm amazed you don't see it. Think about this statement and its relevance to living organisms. If you can't find the flaw it probably won't be worth me continuing with you.

Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed . . .



__________________________________________

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Also, this is going to be my last reply in this thread.
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Ok, this time its my last post . . .




This post was edited on 3/6 10:08 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by LDS69:
I can't let idiocy slide like that, especially when it attacks a scientific fact such as evolution.

a scientific "fact"? how old are you? have you ever actually studied science in school? do you understand the difference between a "fact" and a "theory"?

No, he obviously does not. But you have to feel somewhat sorry for people in that position. They're still in the middle of this indoctrination at the university. At this stage they think they know everything there is to know. They have the world figured out perfectly.
This post was edited on 3/6 10:38 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
There are no facts of Christianity as it pertains to what I'm talking about, which is the orgins of the human species and the universe. I'm sure it has accurate parts about it which deal with completely different things, but when it comes to explanations of our origins, it isn't worth looking at.
[/I]
And there's a huge part of your problem. You won't even consider another option. After all, you've got it all figured out.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I came to the determination that there is no god because using god as an explanation of the universe doesn't fit. Saying that god created the universe only leaves you with the question of what created god? What does it mean to say god doesn't have a creator? Thats non-sense if you are going to argue everything needs a creator, because you just create an infinite regression of what created what.
[/I]
BTW - It's "nonsense" not "non-sense." Get it right before you ridicule.

There is no infinite regression, but you won't realize that because you won't open your mind. An infinite God that has no beginning or limits is the theoretical solution to the problem of the origin of the universe. The moment you make Him have to have an originator you've missed the point.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Quantum physics has shown that things happen in this universe all the time with no cause at all on the fundamental atomic level.
[/I]
That's pure arrogance. If you think you truly understand all the quantum stuff you're truly lost. Just because we're so limited at this moment to detect whether there is a cause doesn't mean there is no cause. Plus, this quantum stuff allows for other dimensions, etc. It may be only popping in and out of our specific reality according to this almost mystical theory. Regardless, quantum theory isn't explaining how every single atom in this entire gigantic entire universe came about. And you're being intellectually dishonest to suggest it does.
This post was edited on 3/6 10:23 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Christianity really takes the cake for me in improbability. I take the arguement for a natural god (i.e. god is the laws of the universe which we can never break but can understand, which if there was a god this would be it in my opinion) more seriously than the Christian god. Far to many impossible stories occur in the bible. Noahs Ark, god stopping the sun in the sky, a virgin getting pregnant, a dead man walking, turning cities and people into salt, ect ect ect. There is just no realisitic possibility that any of those things could occur. Then you add into the fact that Bible puts the age of the Earth at 10000 years or less, which is complete nonsense. It explains our orgins as god just spontaneously putting humans on Earth in his image, yet evolution and our very genetic material proves that thats not what happened.


[/I]
What a house of cards you have constructed. And quit typing "argument" as "arguement." It makes you look silly. You've already been corrected on it. Is this just another example of your inability to learn? You're stuck in a rut.

Why would it be impossible for a God to perform any of the miracles you describe? It would be nothing for Him. It is illogical to think otherwise.

However, I understand your problem with the age of the Earth. It carries some weight. The Earth in several aspects does appear older. But I assure you in other ways it does not. However, it's what the Christian expects. After all, God said He made things mature. Though Adam was one second old he appeared at least a couple decades old. The same thing can be said for every tree, for another example. But upon more examination everything would have new elements to it. There would have been no scars on Adam, or wear with his organs, etc. It's very similar to what we see on the Earth.
 
Originally posted by LDS69:
I can't let idiocy slide like that, especially when it attacks a scientific fact such as evolution.

a scientific "fact"? how old are you? have you ever actually studied science in school? do you understand the difference between a "fact" and a "theory"?


Yes, LDS, there are scientific facts. As I posted in another post on this thread, a scientific theory can never be proven completely because that requires infinite tests and that is impossible. The point of saying its a "scientific fact" was that there is so much evidence to support evolution that is it basically rock solid at this point. It certainly has a few holes left it in, but the overall theory is correct and that is how the scientific community deals with theories. Maybe you should do some research on what scientific theories/laws are exactly.

This site gives a good explanation of what scientific laws/theories are.
This post was edited on 3/6 3:34 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
The flaw in this is so simple I'm amazed you don't see it. Think about this statement and its relevance to living organisms. If you can't find the flaw it probably won't be worth me continuing with you.


Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed . . .


__________________________________________

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Also, this is going to be my last reply in this thread.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Ok, this time its my last post . . .





This post was edited on 3/6 10:08 AM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}


I'm glad you ignored the second link in that post hounded, which completely destroys your argument. Really telling that you didn't comment on that one.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by LDS69:
I can't let idiocy slide like that, especially when it attacks a scientific fact such as evolution.

a scientific "fact"? how old are you? have you ever actually studied science in school? do you understand the difference between a "fact" and a "theory"?

No, he obviously does not. But you have to feel somewhat sorry for people in that position. They're still in the middle of this indoctrination at the university. At this stage they think they know everything there is to know. They have the world figured out perfectly.

This post was edited on 3/6 10:38 AM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

Hounded you are the last person that would know anything about what a scientific theory is.
 
"And there's a huge part of your problem. You won't even consider another option. After all, you've got it all figured out."

I will consider another option it if makes sense in reality. Christianity certainly does not.

"There is no infinite regression, but you won't realize that because you won't open your mind. An infinite God that has no beginning or limits is the theoretical solution to the problem of the origin of the universe. The moment you make Him have to have an originator you've missed the point."

Yes there is an infinite regression, as I said earlier you are arbitrarily choosing to stop at one god and not give him a creator. You have no purpose for doing this, you just choose to with no evidence at all as to why you should stop at one god.

"That's pure arrogance. If you think you truly understand all the quantum stuff you're truly lost. Just because we're so limited at this moment to detect whether there is a cause doesn't mean there is no cause. Plus, this quantum stuff allows for other dimensions, etc. It may be only popping in and out of our specific reality according to this almost mystical theory. Regardless, quantum theory isn't explaining how every single atom in this entire gigantic entire universe came about. And you're being intellectually dishonest to suggest it does."

I never said quantum theory deals with how they came about, it deals with their motions and their actions, and I never said I understand all of quantum theory, you are putting words in my mouth. The theory shows that atoms do things with no apparent cause. You choose not to accept that, but you have no evidence to prove their is a cause. I would certainly entertain your idea that there is a cause to these actions if we had any theoretical or physical evidence that there was. But we don't. So you have an argument with no evidence, which is worthless.
 
"What a house of cards you have constructed. And quit typing "argument" as "arguement." It makes you look silly. You've already been corrected on it. Is this just another example of your inability to learn? You're stuck in a rut."

I'm typing on the fly, so I make a mistake here and there. Who cares, its an internet message board grammar police.

"Why would it be impossible for a God to perform any of the miracles you describe? It would be nothing for Him. It is illogical to think otherwise."

Because the whole world would have known about it. Not every culture, especially the ones closer to the poles, never mention a global flood. They never mention the sun stopping in the sky. They never mention people getting or cities turned to salt. Only a certain region of people have a history of all these miracles attributed to god, but no other region of the world saw these miracles.

The larger problem comes with Noah's flood. There just isn't enough water on Earth to pull off such a flood. Even if god were to magically make more water, all the sea creatures would die from fresh water, the climate of the Earth would be destroyed, and it is purely impossible that Noah could get all the creatures of the Earth onto his boat. It is also purely impossible that he just collected some, and evolution worked its path to all the animals we see today in just a few thousand years.

"However, I understand your problem with the age of the Earth. It carries some weight. The Earth in several aspects does appear older. But I assure you in other ways it does not. However, it's what the Christian expects. After all, God said He made things mature. Though Adam was one second old he appeared at least a couple decades old. The same thing can be said for every tree, for another example. But upon more examination everything would have new elements to it. There would have been no scars on Adam, or wear with his organs, etc. It's very similar to what we see on the Earth."

How does god have the concept of a day or a year or any time scale? Unless he himself orbits a star and revolves around an axis, there is no concept of a day or year in this universe. He would have to be physically in the universe to experience such a thing. Day and year are human creations, god would know nothing of them unless he himself orbits a star and revolves around an axis.

Plus, you can't explain all the impact craters on the Earth if the Earth is indeed that young. Mankind would have been long wipped out had we been around during these times. Then you have the moon, which was created by one of these large impacts with a planet roughly the size of mars. There is no way the moon could be where it is currently located had the collision happened sooner than around 4 billion years ago.

The point is, Earth is atleast 4.5 billion years old, not anywhere close to where the Bible puts it.
This post was edited on 3/6 2:51 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Since you decided to take some sig material, I'll take my own.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing."
- HoundedHawk


What do you think? Personally, I think it looks like a child with those last 3 sentences. It'll be up as long as you keep yours.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I knew you weren't going to stop, as in you would reply to my posts, but I did figure you would follow suit like me after that, as that is usually how these threads end anyway, and you did for the most part until you threw out that last little post about exhaling CO2, so I chimed back in. There is nothing in my post that was a lie.
Your statement about nothing in your post being a lie is yet another lie. You said you were done posting in this thread and here you still are. You are a liar. All the spin in the world will not change that.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Also, this is going to be my last reply in this thread.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Ok, this time its my last post . . .





This post was edited on 3/6 9:54 AM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

Oh cry hounded, its an internet message board and you came back to my posts with one of the most idiotic comments I've seen made and thats saying a lot given we have Fletch/Accuro running around these boards. I feel I am perfectly justified in coming back to this thread, pointing out that your comment about complex organic molecules is not based on any knowledge of the subject yourself. In fact a few posts later, you just completely ignored the link that destroys your(and Dave Wyatts) argument that it is statistically impossible.




"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing."
- HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 8:09 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Oh cry hounded, its an internet message board and you came back to my posts with one of the most idiotic comments I've seen made and thats saying a lot given we have Fletch/Accuro running around these boards. I feel I am perfectly justified in coming back to this thread,
Of course. You can always lie and come back to this thread.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I'm glad you ignored the second link in that post hounded, which completely destroys your argument. Really telling that you didn't comment on that one.
I didn't ignore the link. It's just as irrelevant as the first. And the statement I quoted proves how ridiculous it is if you would just think about it for a minute.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Since you decided to take some sig material, I'll take my own.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing."
- HoundedHawk


What do you think? Personally, I think it looks like a child with those last 3 sentences. It'll be up as long as you keep yours.
Please, please keep it. It's an appropriate mock for what you evolutionists should consider "organic."
This post was edited on 3/6 5:05 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Hounded you are the last person that would know anything about what a scientific theory is.
Well, the mind reading, college student iowahawkeyes1986 has spoken.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yes, LDS, there are scientific facts. As I posted in another post on this thread, a scientific theory can never be proven completely because that requires infinite tests and that is impossible. The point of saying its a "scientific fact" was that there is so much evidence to support evolution that is it basically rock solid at this point. It certainly has a few holes left it in,
Yep, there's a fact to iowahawkeyes1986. It's an unproven theory that still has holes in it.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"And there's a huge part of your problem. You won't even consider another option. After all, you've got it all figured out."

I will consider another option it if makes sense in reality. Christianity certainly does not.
[/B]
Since by your own admission you have not even considered it then you cannot honestly judge whether it makes sense or not.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"There is no infinite regression, but you won't realize that because you won't open your mind. An infinite God that has no beginning or limits is the theoretical solution to the problem of the origin of the universe. The moment you make Him have to have an originator you've missed the point."

Yes there is an infinite regression, as I said earlier you are arbitrarily choosing to stop at one god and not give him a creator. You have no purpose for doing this, you just choose to with no evidence at all as to why you should stop at one god.
[/B]
It's not arbitrary at all. The theory requires I stop at one God. If there was more than one He wouldn't be God. Perhaps on my tenth time of saying that it may stick for you. You know, like with spelling of "argument." It took a little while.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"That's pure arrogance. If you think you truly understand all the quantum stuff you're truly lost. Just because we're so limited at this moment to detect whether there is a cause doesn't mean there is no cause. Plus, this quantum stuff allows for other dimensions, etc. It may be only popping in and out of our specific reality according to this almost mystical theory. Regardless, quantum theory isn't explaining how every single atom in this entire gigantic entire universe came about. And you're being intellectually dishonest to suggest it does."

I never said quantum theory deals with how they came about, it deals with their motions and their actions, and I never said I understand all of quantum theory, you are putting words in my mouth. The theory shows that atoms do things with no apparent cause. You choose not to accept that, but you have no evidence to prove their is a cause. I would certainly entertain your idea that there is a cause to these actions if we had any theoretical or physical evidence that there was. But we don't. So you have an argument with no evidence, which is worthless.
[/B]
Beep. Beep. Beep. I hear you backtracking. Your paragraph above demonstrates that what is truly worthless here is you bringing up some quantum theory you truly don't understand to justify the entire universe coming about completely and absolutely by itself. It quantum theory can't refute my claim that all the matter in the universe cannot account for itself, then shut up about it. It doesn't help your cause. It's like saying, "One time, we kind of maybe perhaps thunk that two rocks the same size and shape fell perfectly straight on top of one another with no help. Therefore, the Great Pyramid could have accidently made itself."
 
In fact a few posts later, you just completely ignored the link that destroys your(and Dave Wyatts) argument that it is statistically impossible.

In law direct evidence supercedes circumstantial evidence, which has been used in millions of cases, to convict criminals of crimes. As definedEvidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from circumstantial evidence, often called indirect.
 
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"What a house of cards you have constructed. And quit typing "argument" as "arguement." It makes you look silly. You've already been corrected on it. Is this just another example of your inability to learn? You're stuck in a rut."

I'm typing on the fly, so I make a mistake here and there. Who cares, its an internet message board grammar police. [/B]
It's not a typo. It's obvious you didn't know how to spell the word.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Why would it be impossible for a God to perform any of the miracles you describe? It would be nothing for Him. It is illogical to think otherwise."

Because the whole world would have known about it. Not every culture, especially the ones closer to the poles, never mention a global flood. They never mention the sun stopping in the sky. They never mention people getting or cities turned to salt. Only a certain region of people have a history of all these miracles attributed to god, but no other region of the world saw these miracles.[/B]
No, the whole world would not have to know about it. What is wrong with you? Why can't you understand the concept that an all powerful God could make anything appear as anything to anybody? Open your mind.

Plus, most of your post is asinine. There is no city turned to salt. You're an ignoramus on this stuff. And, no wonder, by your own admission you won't even check it out. One woman was turned into a pillar of salt. How would even the next person down the road know that at one time it was a woman? Duh. How could other regions of the world mention miracles they never saw? Come on.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
The larger problem comes with Noah's flood. There just isn't enough water on Earth to pull off such a flood. Even if god were to magically make more water, all the sea creatures would die from fresh water, the climate of the Earth would be destroyed, and it is purely impossible that Noah could get all the creatures of the Earth onto his boat. It is also purely impossible that he just collected some, and evolution worked its path to all the animals we see today in just a few thousand years.
My goodness, you are truly ignorant of biblical claims. But, no wonder, by your own admission you won't even consider it.

In the Bible it says all the land was in one place and at that time the mountains had not fully rose and the valleys had not sunk. It didn't nearly take as much water as it would today and the atmosphere was loaded with vastly more moisture. It also says the fountains of the deep were opened. It didn't all come from the sky. And all the animals could get on the ark and all forms could come from them in a few thousand years. It's already been demonstrated countless times by creationist writers.
 
In fact a few posts later, you just completely ignored the link that destroys your(and Dave Wyatts) argument that it is statistically impossible.

In law direct evidence supercedes circumstantial evidence, which has been used in millions of cases, to convict criminals of crimes. As defined in the legal encyclopedia, direct evidence is evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning.

Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from circumstantial evidence, often called indirect.

Taking that into account, the testimony, the eyewitness accounts, the historical independent references of Josephus (especially the Arabic translations), it can be stated as FACT that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, resurrected, and was seen alive and walking after all these events by hundreds upon hundreds of EYEWITNESSES. The documentation is prolific. Hundreds of skeptics have attempted to dismantle the evidence and build a case against the events. Antagonistic, well educated, even expert, critics have set about to destroy the Gospel by means of destroying the credibility of the authors.

They have failed.

Statistically your scientific site is irrelevant and immaterial to the argument of creation. Your disbelief of the existence of God, Christ, and the efficacy of Christianity is, honestly, irrelevant to whether or not creation is/was initiated by a supreme being.

Conversely, if the resurrection of Christ as presented by the documents of the eyewitnesses as handed down through the last 2000 years are and continue to be verified by ongoing archaeologiical, historical, and linguistic refinement, your choice not to believe should, logically, be altered by what you hold as the end-all be-all of conscious decision making. Science.

Or we probably all ought to toos history out on its ear since the accounts as handed down in wwritten form concerning the rise and fall of Rome, the marauding reign of terror og Ghegis Khan, the exploits of Alexander the Great, or even the assassination of Abraham Lincoln must be false since we dodn't witness those events personally.

You believe what you believe 1986, but the next time someone on this board says I'm arrogant because I believe in God and in Jesus Christ, I'll think of a student at the University of Iowa who goes by the nom de plume iowahawkeyes1986, and has everything figured out at the ripwe old age of 21.
This post was edited on 3/6 5:22 PM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT