Nation of Israel and God

Page 8 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

14 Nov 2011, 2:26 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I never said I didn't believe in a creator - I refer to myself as a theistic evolutionist.
I'm not an advocate of the teaching of intelligent design, though, as God is unprovable by science, and science is what is only provable.

*Sigh*, your mind is corralled down a predetermined path by modern word games.
Let me explain.
"God is unprovable by science, and science is what is only provable."

First, define "proof". We can't know anything for sure, only with what is called "relative certainty". So, where do you, personally, set the standard for what is "proof" of something? (And there can't be one standard for physical data and another for God, or else you're not using a standard.)

Also, how did the supposed proof of evolution reach your mind? Through your own experimentation? Or through others' writings?

The reality of God has reached my mind through both of those ways, as it has through all Christians. And He is not deniable once He is known, any more than any other fact can be dismissed by any person who has learned and confirmed it is true.

You think you go by a certain thing called "science", but you really don't. You go by, in the best of times, second-hand knowledge of the results of experiments. And no experiment has shown or evidensed the grand evolution that is said to have built non-living elements up into humans. That God caused evolution is at least a more logical view than that we arrived here without His influence, I'll grant you that. I myself don't even believe in theistic evolution, and really, what is the important difference if I did? I'd still believe God exists and calls all the shots. I just don't happen to believe He did it through a process that left zero conclusive fossils behind in the fossil record, when it should have left trillions, as Darwin himself said.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

14 Nov 2011, 2:29 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Also, how did the supposed proof of evolution reach your mind? Through your own experimentation? Or through others' writings?

The reality of God has reached my mind through both of those ways, as it has through all Christians.

What kind of experiments did you run to discover the proof of God?

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

14 Nov 2011, 2:32 pm

Lecks wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

I'm sorry, I'm just going to have to go back and question Lecks about his declared inability to watch videos over 30 minutes, even when such videos are on a subject which clearly interests him.

Also, his assertion that text which presents only one side of an argument is somehow more conducive to learning, weighing matters, and drawing correct conclusions than is a two-sided debate on the same topic seems quite odd to me. I mean, I'm watching an evolution debate as I'm typing this (it's on pause, of course), and my brain is totally lit up with weighing this and that which is being said by both sides, because I'm hearing more information -- and most important, there is a dynamic contest going on among all this information -- about the question of origins, than I would from just reading a one-sided take on it. Maybe Lecks can enlighten me as to how it isn't lame to say he can't watch a video. As perhaps I implied, Lennox clearly wins against Atkins (it's a little sad by how much, really), and Craig clearly wins against Hitchens. If reading those two claims of mine makes you bored, rather than curious to find out for yourself and perhaps prove me wrong, it seems to me like taking a pass on a challenge deemed to be too difficult.

Both Jakob and Lecks have opted out of watching any of the videos based apparently on their length. Well, don't you think the theory of evolution is complex and grand enough to deserve 2 hours of discussion, especially if the intent is to systematically show how the whole thing breaks down into nonsense? I'm guessing you proponents of the Theory would think it would be quite a feat indeed to do that in merely 2 hours! Again, Craig destroys Hitchens, then Dawkins says "No thanks" to Craig. If I believed in evolution, THAT would really get my attention.

There's too much information to process in videos, my mind goes blank after a while and eventually I stop thinking about what I'm hearing and seeing. I could do it in small intervals, but I honestly don't have the time to watch a 2 hour debate with breaks thrown in.

Well, you have the internet and local libraries and bookstores at your disposal. You can find whatever answers on this topic you seek. Clearly, I've done what I can to that end, and you must take it from here.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Nov 2011, 2:34 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Just because Darwin was wrong when thinking there should be trillions of fossils doesn't make him wrong on anything else.
And no, I haven't observed evolution on my own - I've only read about it. But then again, I've never been to Australia, but I'm pretty certain there's enough proof that it exists.
I think we have differing theologies in that you seem to believe in irresistible grace once saved, whereas in my Lutheran tradition, while conversion and salvation is entirely God's work, we can always reject it and fall from grace. Think Judas.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

14 Nov 2011, 2:37 pm

Lecks wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Really? Have you seen evolution happen?

"See it to believe it" is an expression, it just has to make sense to me.

Ah, well... that's different. Your previous answer led me to believe there was a consistent process in which you come to believe things.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

14 Nov 2011, 2:40 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

1) Downloading videos takes ages.

Really? Mine downloads as I watch it. There is no waiting at all.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

14 Nov 2011, 2:53 pm

Vigilans wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

What kind of experiments did you run to discover the proof of God?

Has no one read my posts about the scribes? They saw Jesus do these things and wrote it down! They were literally the security video cameras of their day!

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

14 Nov 2011, 3:00 pm

shrox wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

What kind of experiments did you run to discover the proof of God?

Has no one read my posts about the scribes? They saw Jesus do these things and wrote it down! They were literally the security video cameras of their day!

That still amounts to what Ragtime referred to as "Others' writings". He said through both ways (writings and experimentation) did he discover the reality of God. So my question is, what instrumentation can I use myself to detect God, and what other materials and methodology will I need?

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

14 Nov 2011, 3:31 pm

Vigilans wrote:

...That still amounts to what Ragtime referred to as "Others' writings". He said through both ways (writings and experimentation) did he discover the reality of God. So my question is, what instrumentation can I use myself to detect God, and what other materials and methodology will I need?

Your correct in that. I guess everyone must touch the hot stove, no one can simply learn from the experience of others.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

14 Nov 2011, 3:51 pm

Lecks wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Lecks wrote:

So you expect transitional fossils for every single step from "lizard" to "human"? That's just not going happen, as Kraichgauer has pointed out, the conditions for fossilization are rare and the likelihood that we'll find a complete lineage of such an enormous transition is close to nil.

Making it unfalsifiable.

Very good point; I forgot about that. It's "scientific fact", "absolutely true", and unfalsifiable.

He has no point, a complete lineage is unnecessary to confirm evolution.

Once again: Evolution is fact, the Theory of Evolution is and always will be a work in progress.

It's a work in progress, and it's absolutely true? There is either a failure of language here or you're offering a contradiction.
The "there are things we still don't know about evolution" is an immeasurably large tarp covering all the most important (basic) questions of life's origins. And that does not, for it cannot, exclude cosmology. Evolution is not specifically about cosmology, but neither are the two separable. By analogy, if I ask what holds a branch of a tree off the ground, it's no use coming back with impassioned insistence that we're only discussing the branch and nothing else at the moment -- the question STILL hangs heavy in the air, and is wholly indespensible -- its answer is the tree trunk. So it is with evolution and cosmology, that cosmology is NOT, in fact, a separate subject.

I much prefer the mantra approach you took. It's cleaner. "Evolution is fact." Really, I don't see why mantra alone can't convince the whole world.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

14 Nov 2011, 4:30 pm

shrox wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Your correct in that. I guess everyone must touch the hot stove, no one can simply learn from the experience of others.

Personal experience is certainly important but you can gain a great understanding and insight into a subject from in depth research. For example, you could read about the much more rapid time scale of microorganism evolution, and learn a lot, and perhaps even be able to make inferences yourself. You could also create a microcosm bacterial environment and observe it yourself with the right observational tools (ie... a microscope).

You can also learn a lot about God and the ideas presented by the various religions through in depth research; there are after all many Theologians. However there do not seem to be similar methodologies of direct detection for the idea of God that exist for the various sciences to provide evidence for the theories they have presented. When it comes down to it, I find it ironic that while many religious people claim that scientists are arrogant for developing theories, or criticize through incomprehension or ignorance the very concept of a theory, the truth is that religion does not offer any theories whatsoever, instead offering a rigid explanation for everything, that is not really up for interpretation unless you make the choice to see things otherwise. Possibly being accused of heresy in the process. So I just wonder who is really more arrogant, those who present ideas and theories and expect people to attempt to falsify them or develop them further, or those who claim that the content of one book is all that matters and the topic is not up for debate

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

14 Nov 2011, 4:38 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Lecks wrote:

He has no point, a complete lineage is unnecessary to confirm evolution.

Once again: Evolution is fact, the Theory of Evolution is and always will be a work in progress.

Ragtime, "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" are not interchangeable. Evolution is what we're observing, the Theory is what we think is happening. However, the Theory has reached a point of understanding where we're confident in identifying something as being evolution (which is why it's acceptable to say it is fact) even if we can't fully explain everything that's happening, yet.

Does a process tick all the boxes the theory finds necessary? If yes, then the process falls under evolution. If not, holy s**t let's find out what this is!

_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

14 Nov 2011, 11:08 pm

Ragtime wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Lecks wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Really? Have you seen evolution happen?

"See it to believe it" is an expression, it just has to make sense to me. I haven't seen evolution happen, I'm not looking for it.

Quote:

I find that profoundly unpersuasive. Not nearly enough fossils have been found to support a theory of life evolving upward to the degree necessary to turn an ancient lizard into a human today. And "not nearly" is putting it mildly. You know this is true.

Making it unfalsifiable.

Very good point; I forgot about that. It's "scientific fact", "absolutely true", and unfalsifiable.

What many creationists don't realize is that even if there were no fossils at all in the rocks, absolutely none, there is still way more than sufficient evidence of many different types that clearly show evolution happens, enough to where it is not wrong to call it an observed fact of nature just as much (no more, no less) as gravity is an observed fact of nature. That we do have fossils, with more being found all the time, is just the icing on the cake.

The past twenty years especially have been thrilling in many fossil discoveries showing vertebrate evolution. Our understanding of and evidence for the fish to land animal transition, the land mammals to whales transition, the origin of mammals, the origin of dinosaurs, the dinosaur to bird transition, and human evolution too, have all been greatly increased the past twenty years. Please educate yourself instead of spreading misinformation.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Nov 2011, 8:32 am

Ragtime wrote:

The "there are things we still don't know about evolution" is an immeasurably large tarp covering all the most important (basic) questions of life's origins.

The various scientific theories of evolution do not address the question of how life came about in the first place. They only address how living things change over time.

Abiogenesis was not on Charles Darwin's resume.

ruveyn

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

15 Nov 2011, 11:06 am

AngelRho wrote:

Making it unfalsifiable.

You don't need every step to prove evolution. You simply have to show that there is a consistent lineage over time, which there is.

Last edited by Gedrene on 15 Nov 2011, 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

15 Nov 2011, 11:17 am

Ragtime wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

*Sigh*, your mind is corralled down a predetermined path by modern word games.

Not really. You were making some specious argument earlier about modern word games by using the word unfalsifiable, without actually having any proof that evolution is unfalsifiable. So this is pot calling kettle black. Furthermore, don't patronize Kraichgauer. That's spineless.

Ragtime wrote:

Let me explain.
"God is unprovable by science, and science is what is only provable."
First, define "proof".

Proof, n
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Ragtime wrote:

Also, how did the supposed proof of evolution reach your mind? Through your own experimentation? Or through others' writings?

Through consistent and constant fossil evidence that matches up to the theory of evolution and can be dated to a continuum of time that is consistent with biological theory.

Ragtime wrote:

The reality of God has reached my mind through both of those ways, as it has through all Christians. And He is not deniable once He is known, any more than any other fact can be dismissed by any person who has learned and confirmed it is true.

So you're now arguing hypocrisy? You said earlier in your postt hat nobody can argue anything for sure. Anything includes God. Yet you say your God cannot be denied. Ergo you are a hypocrite.

Ragtime wrote:

You think you go by a certain thing called "science", but you really don't. You go by, in the best of times, second-hand knowledge of the results of experiments. And no experiment has shown or evidensed the grand evolution that is said to have built non-living elements up into humans.

That's because evolution deals with living organisms, not non-living matter. However it's quite easy to track a path today from prokaryotes to modern lifeforms with certainty. Also one doesn't need an experiment; all one needs to prove something is evidence. An experiment is just a method of gathering evidence.

Ragtime wrote:

I just don't happen to believe He did it through a process that left zero conclusive fossils behind in the fossil record, when it should have left trillions, as Darwin himself said.

Darwin isn't always right. Also Darwin didn't say that. Furthermore there are many conclusive fossils.

You are lying to yourself again. You are steeped in your own bigotry towards science and cannot even be bothered to recognise the fact that your God is nothing more than a being used to make up gaps for you.

Page 8 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Jump to:

Nation of Israel and God Post Reply New Topic

Nation of Israel and God