Total Posts:151|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intell. Design: Christianity's Fatal Mistake

monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God. When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

I'm really only contending that neither creation or evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:27:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
well, science will only operate within the confines of observable law.
they must postulate evolution, it is the only naturalistic explanation.
it doesn't mean there is any evidence for it. It is just literally the only argument that can be given, based on natural law. "somehow little things came alive, and gradually grew bigger and more complex".

This is only valid on one assumption - there cannot be a creator.

until that assumption is shown to be true, nobody has any reason to believe evolution is correct because the parameters which make it an explanation, cant be shown to be relevant.
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:49:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM, monty1 wrote:

Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God. When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

You are aware that ID is not Christian doctrine right? But anyone can challenge science if they feel science is wrong. There is no such thing as science's ground. If some hypothesis is silly, it is silly no matter who is questioning it.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause...

How so? I've seen responses of evolutionists to it but I was unaware it had been debunked.

...and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

I don't think so. Many scientists are Christian. And Christian questioning of evolution had made evolutionists have to address many things they had just let go.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

I'm really only contending that neither creation or evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:50:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:27:26 PM, andymcstab wrote:
well, science will only operate within the confines of observable law.
they must postulate evolution, it is the only naturalistic explanation.
it doesn't mean there is any evidence for it. It is just literally the only argument that can be given, based on natural law. "somehow little things came alive, and gradually grew bigger and more complex".

This is only valid on one assumption - there cannot be a creator.

until that assumption is shown to be true, nobody has any reason to believe evolution is correct because the parameters which make it an explanation, cant be shown to be relevant.

Well, you have completely avoided answering the question.

Can Christianity use science in their arguments for creation. ID is in fact them doing exactly that. They have strayed from employing faith and are about to argue creation by using science's own knowledge and understanding.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 2:01:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:49:38 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM, monty1 wrote:

Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God. When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

You are aware that ID is not Christian doctrine right? But anyone can challenge science if they feel science is wrong. There is no such thing as science's ground. If some hypothesis is silly, it is silly no matter who is questioning it.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause...

How so? I've seen responses of evolutionists to it but I was unaware it had been debunked.

...and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

I don't think so. Many scientists are Christian. And Christian questioning of evolution had made evolutionists have to address many things they had just let go.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

I'm really only contending that neither creation or evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.

I would be very interested in hearing some examples of those scientists on the side of Intelligent Design proposing some scientific fact that changed the opinions of those supporting evolution. Or furthered the argument of creation as opposed to evolution.

I would suggest that none exist and any scientist on the side of the ID'ers are pseudo scientists at best. That is, when they consider the creation/evolution argument.

Has Intelligent Design offered or given anything to science that science can accept as reasonable scientific theory?

If a supporter of Intelligent Design so much as disagrees with mainstream science in the very least, the Intelligent Design believer will be immediately discredited. Or perhaps ignored if that's all that is warranted.

And I freely admit that no credible scientist should meddle in Christian beliefs that are based on faith. He would be an equal loser.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:37:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM, monty1 wrote:
Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God.

Science is about the natural not the supernatural, so this is a given.

When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

On the other side of the coin, natural evidence cannot disprove something supernatural.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

Intelligent design is an argument for the creation of the universe. How it progressed from there is irrelevant. Evolution and intelligent design can logically coexist. It just means things evolved after being intelligently designed.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

No, there are plenty of Christian scientists. My faith doesn't change anything about something like chemistry or physics.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

That didn't make sense to me.

I'm really only contending that neither *creationism nor* evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

That wasn't part of your advocacy until that sentence.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.

You're welcome.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 5:30:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM, monty1 wrote:
Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God. When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

I'm really only contending that neither creation or evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.

God didn't make any mistakes when He planned to use religion and science to reveal Himself, His voice and His invisible creation. First came religion, then He used some people to go beyond religion to find the Truth. I call these people Truth seekers who looked beyond the star constellations ( false gods ) that religious people thought they were. This was how science was born to try answer the questions of why, where, when, how, etc.

Science is getting very close to the Truth that no religious man could ever understand but they still won't find the Truth because He's invisible and so are we.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 7:12:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
TheOncomingStorm, Evolution and ID can only coexist if the creationists don't question evolution. They did and they were made fools of. Science does not accept that an intelligent designer was responsible for life on earth. That is not an option or an acceptable hypothesis.

No mater what ID'ers try to say about the subject they will be putting their feet in their mouths. They need to not stray from their faith based beliefs. And you have pretty much acknowledged that anyway.

I agree that science would be making an as- of itself if it attempted to interpret any hypothesis by basing their evidence on faith.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 7:16:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:27:26 PM, andymcstab wrote:
well, science will only operate within the confines of observable law.
they must postulate evolution, it is the only naturalistic explanation.
it doesn't mean there is any evidence for it. It is just literally the only argument that can be given, based on natural law. "somehow little things came alive, and gradually grew bigger and more complex".

This is only valid on one assumption - there cannot be a creator.

until that assumption is shown to be true, nobody has any reason to believe evolution is correct because the parameters which make it an explanation, cant be shown to be relevant.

Exactly! the the two trains of thought must not cross. ID'ers tried to explain irreducible complexity and failed miserably. I think they learned a lesson from the Dover school trial and they are pulling in their horns. It's for their better interests that they do. And that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

Maybe it would be equally appropriate to have a thread: Science must not interfere in faith based Christianity.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 8:34:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
ID was ruled against, not on grounds of validity but because it

"violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "

and the judge said

"the concept is creationism in disguise. "

Nothing to do with the evidence for ID.
Also, evolution is necessary for atheism, which makes evolution part of a fundamentalist belief system.

Religion
1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Theists posit God as that power, atheists posit evolution. It must be superhuman to have made everything from inanimate matter

1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship

Evolution is the faith of atheists, and they worship it as the creator

1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

Evolution is followed with great devotion by atheists.

Evolution then is just as much a part of religion as ID, and the judge should have thrown that out if he wants to throw out ID.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 10:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 8:34:07 PM, andymcstab wrote:
ID was ruled against, not on grounds of validity but because it

"violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "

and the judge said

"the concept is creationism in disguise. "

Nothing to do with the evidence for ID.
Also, evolution is necessary for atheism, which makes evolution part of a fundamentalist belief system.

Religion
1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Theists posit God as that power, atheists posit evolution. It must be superhuman to have made everything from inanimate matter

1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship

Evolution is the faith of atheists, and they worship it as the creator

1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

Evolution is followed with great devotion by atheists.

Evolution then is just as much a part of religion as ID, and the judge should have thrown that out if he wants to throw out ID.

I have no interest in the fact that the ID side was ruled against for the reason of ID violating the constitutionality of church vs. state. All that is important is that the ID side was crushed. It was crushed because their attempt at arguing scientific evidence was weak, wrong, and misinformed. If you studied the Dover case at all you would know just that.

Everything they say from thereon in will be scrutinized carefully and if they presume to come up with scientific 'fact' that doesn't agree with mainstream science then they will be further humiliated and put down in short order.

They are left with arguing their side based on faith alone.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 10:42:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM, monty1 wrote:
Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God. When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

I'm really only contending that neither creation or evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.

I think it's just another feeble atheist attack mantra that has no reality. I am a Christian and I once majored in anthropology at U.C. Berkeley and am fully in agreement with the theory of evolution. It is a most elegant theory that does explain how species evolve and change over time to meet environmental conditions. It explains how human beings evolved out of primate roots. To me, it is the physical truth of how Creation works and how God's Plan has been put into motion. You see, when I was naive about spiritual reality as all atheists are, the theory of evolution was enough to explain how we got here as an intelligent species (in theory). But then about age 35 I happened to undergo a religious conversion experience that come literally "out of nowhere" and this three day Road to Damascus experience of mine utterly destroyed my former atheist ideas of reality. Just blew that atheist worldview out the window because there was no scientific explanation for what happened to me. Oh I am quite familiar with all the atheists attempts to deny spiritual phenomena by reducing religious experiences to various "explanations" like claiming my experiences are a form of epilepsy, or drugs, or anything but God doing the work of waking up my dormant spiritual reception and processing parts of my brain that are deaden in atheist brains. It is no accident that atheism follows yuppie up-bringings in homes where secular science rules family ideology. In lower income families religion rules family ideology if they aren't suffering from the ravages of poverty. Because there are way more lower income families than elitist yuppies religious feelings dominate our American communities ideologically. Atheists can only bitch and moan but can't budge American society with atheist ideas.

And to me, that's good. Because historically when atheists get into positions of social power and inflict their atheist ideas as general State policy, people die, lot's of them. "Spiritual, not religious" this is the what is needed, not atheism. Removal of traditional organized religions dominating social policies is needed. But atheism is not needed. It is a worse religion than theism because of being only negation based with nothing positive to offer anyone. Certainly not truth as no atheist can counter the logic of history that has already destroyed all atheist religious ideology that No God exists.

I can at anytime trash the logic of atheism with the Logic of History and the Logic of Infinity.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:04:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 10:42:28 PM, biomystic wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM, monty1 wrote:
Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God. When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

I'm really only contending that neither creation or evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.

I think it's just another feeble atheist attack mantra that has no reality. I am a Christian and I once majored in anthropology at U.C. Berkeley and am fully in agreement with the theory of evolution. It is a most elegant theory that does explain how species evolve and change over time to meet environmental conditions. It explains how human beings evolved out of primate roots. To me, it is the physical truth of how Creation works and how God's Plan has been put into motion. You see, when I was naive about spiritual reality as all atheists are, the theory of evolution was enough to explain how we got here as an intelligent species (in theory). But then about age 35 I happened to undergo a religious conversion experience that come literally "out of nowhere" and this three day Road to Damascus experience of mine utterly destroyed my former atheist ideas of reality. Just blew that atheist worldview out the window because there was no scientific explanation for what happened to me. Oh I am quite familiar with all the atheists attempts to deny spiritual phenomena by reducing religious experiences to various "explanations" like claiming my experiences are a form of epilepsy, or drugs, or anything but God doing the work of waking up my dormant spiritual reception and processing parts of my brain that are deaden in atheist brains. It is no accident that atheism follows yuppie up-bringings in homes where secular science rules family ideology. In lower income families religion rules family ideology if they aren't suffering from the ravages of poverty. Because there are way more lower income families than elitist yuppies religious feelings dominate our American communities ideologically. Atheists can only bitch and moan but can't budge American society with atheist ideas.

And to me, that's good. Because historically when atheists get into positions of social power and inflict their atheist ideas as general State policy, people die, lot's of them. "Spiritual, not religious" this is the what is needed, not atheism. Removal of traditional organized religions dominating social policies is needed. But atheism is not needed. It is a worse religion than theism because of being only negation based with nothing positive to offer anyone. Certainly not truth as no atheist can counter the logic of history that has already destroyed all atheist religious ideology that No God exists.

I can at anytime trash the logic of atheism with the Logic of History and the Logic of Infinity.

All of which could be perfectly true but doesn't begin to dispel the fact that ID'ers risk their very existence by treading on the grounds of science. If they so much as protest scientific knowledge to the slightest degree, they will be shot down in flames.

They messed with irreducible complexity in the Dover trial and that was a fatal mistake. What their best pseudo scientists thought they knew just wasn't so but they wrongly thought they knew more about science's territory than science itself.

It will always be so. The ID'ers will never embrace modern science to the point at which they have more than a random sampling of would be fanatics on their side. It would be sacrosanct to their very being!
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:22:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Mayhaps the OP should consider other mechanisms by which macroevolution can occur. Polyploidy, transposition and adaptive mutations are far more plausible and verified means by which new traits are generated for selection. The fact that evolutionists deny chance says a lot about the theory.

As for ID, it is very sound. Intelligence acting on matter is the only thing that makes 1) codes (what ID folks call complex specified infotmation) 2) irreducible complexity (that a complex system is reducible to core parts crucial to its basic function).

No naturalist has a precedent of unguided natural processes making codes outside living systems but from living systems we know intelligence is key to making codes since humans make a lot of it. We also know natural processes don't make IC. These leaves the TOE baseless. It needs new mechanisms or it should fall. I think its due for the latter.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 12:11:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM, monty1 wrote:
Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God. When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

I'm really only contending that neither creation or evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.

I would deb curious as to how you arrived at this assessment?

One of the strongest proof of intelligent design is actually math. Statistics:

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

The 'proof', which is admitted inductive rather than conclusive, uses science to understand all the requirements necessary to reach the point where we have a planet with life on it. Each of the steps required are then put into a statistic model and the results are ... eye opening.

The chances of even one plant being capable of supporting life is well beyond the point of statistical impossibility. The only thing that can change this outcome would be some element of engineering. Something to shape the process to a specific outcome rather than a random or naturalistic outcome. Its kind of like seeing a sword, and, I suppose its possible for it to be created by purely naturalistic sources, but its highly improbable. Its more likely to be the result of a forging process.

The same principle applies to the concept behind intelligent design. It accepts the scientific principle in exacting detail and merely asks the question: What are the chances this 'just happened?"

Its an interesting question given that the beginning is the universe literally, as if by magic, appearing, and then exploding to create a universe. Not exactly a 'natural' or common occurrence is it?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 12:52:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 12:11:51 AM, neutral wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:47:05 PM, monty1 wrote:
Christians must stay with faith and not venture into science in order to argue their belief in a God. When they challenge science they will be defeated on science's ground.

Irreducible Complexity was a huge loss for the ID cause and it should have been a warning to Christians to not continue to challenge science on the topic.

One could perhaps say that Christianity is out of bounds to science and science is out of bounds for Christians.

However, we may also be able to say, Creation: Science's Fatal Mistake.

I'm really only contending that neither creation or evolution can be successfully argued to a conclusion by believers of either side.

I'm interested in a rebuttal of the statement made in the title of this thread.

I would deb curious as to how you arrived at this assessment?

One of the strongest proof of intelligent design is actually math. Statistics:

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

The 'proof', which is admitted inductive rather than conclusive, uses science to understand all the requirements necessary to reach the point where we have a planet with life on it. Each of the steps required are then put into a statistic model and the results are ... eye opening.

The chances of even one plant being capable of supporting life is well beyond the point of statistical impossibility. The only thing that can change this outcome would be some element of engineering. Something to shape the process to a specific outcome rather than a random or naturalistic outcome. Its kind of like seeing a sword, and, I suppose its possible for it to be created by purely naturalistic sources, but its highly improbable. Its more likely to be the result of a forging process.

The same principle applies to the concept behind intelligent design. It accepts the scientific principle in exacting detail and merely asks the question: What are the chances this 'just happened?"

Its an interesting question given that the beginning is the universe literally, as if by magic, appearing, and then exploding to create a universe. Not exactly a 'natural' or common occurrence is it?

What are you talking about? "The chances of even one plant being capable of supporting life is well beyond the point of statistical impossibility"???

Science didn't claim that one plant supported life. Offer a real challenge to science and your ID will be shot down in flames. The ID'ers at the Dover trial did just that with irreducible complexity and then had to slink away from it.

Be specific, challenge science. Your sword analogy just doesn't work. Science can offer sound theories on anything you choose to talk about.

Science is not your bag so stay away from it. And science doesn't have any business challenging your faith unless you ask for it to be challenged. That is what ID'ers have done. But you talk in uncertain terms such as using a sword analogy and so you remain on safe grounds. Well, at least until you made the false claim about a flower supporting life. You shouldn't have made that false claim but you deemed it necessary as part of your argument.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 1:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's get this on track with a definition of Intelligent Design from Wikipedia. If we can come to agreement that this definition is correct then we can proceed to blow ID completely out of the water.

"Intelligent design (ID)[1] is a form of creationism,[2][3] the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," presented by its proponents with the claim that this is a scientific theory.[4] It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea."

They have decided to challenge natural selection and that was their fatal mistake. For that reason it's become essential that mainstream Christianity needs to distance themselves from the particular "Intelligent Design" organization. If they can manage to do that then they could return to safe ground.

In my opinion, that doesn't mean that they have to abandon the notion of Intelligent Design completely, they only have to abandon the ID'ers science based arguments. And if they don't want to do that then we need to ask them to challenge science.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 3:31:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
ITT: religion and science said to be incompatible despite monks coming up with the Big Bang theory and the scientific method.

What advancements in science have the atheists come up with?
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 6:10:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Logic of History and the Logic of Infinity destroy atheist arguments against the existence of God. No atheist on earth can counter these facts that when extrapolated to their logical conclusions not only permit but verify expectation that just by keeping to our present path of knowledge accumulation and subsequent powers to manipulate our environments, e.g. going from burning wood and coal to keep warm to being able to bring the power of the sun on earth in less than 200 years. Same for transportation, from horse and buggies to inter-galatic space ships in 200 years. Projecting this rate of human power the ability of a God to transform thought into matter becomes only a matter of time. Given a few more millennia we will be able to create a universe and we already did and are only in the process of remembering what we already accomplished. The Gospel of Humanity shows how this all works. Gospel of Humanity at: http://biomystic.org...
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 6:22:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 6:10:48 PM, biomystic wrote:
The Logic of History and the Logic of Infinity destroy atheist arguments against the existence of God. No atheist on earth can counter these facts that when extrapolated to their logical conclusions not only permit but verify expectation that just by keeping to our present path of knowledge accumulation and subsequent powers to manipulate our environments, e.g. going from burning wood and coal to keep warm to being able to bring the power of the sun on earth in less than 200 years. Same for transportation, from horse and buggies to inter-galatic space ships in 200 years. Projecting this rate of human power the ability of a God to transform thought into matter becomes only a matter of time. Given a few more millennia we will be able to create a universe and we already did and are only in the process of remembering what we already accomplished. The Gospel of Humanity shows how this all works. Gospel of Humanity at: http://biomystic.org...

Burn all the wood and coal you like but don't you dare try to challenge science on the basis of Intelligent Design. If you do try to use science to further your religious fantasies then you will be cut down to size quicker than you can get on your knees and ask for guidance from above!
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:10:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is that all you got? Empty threats? I told you how it works and I showed you how it works Logically with logic that fits reality, real human history while you're positing what? Mathematical mumbo-jumbo?

You can't fault the Logic of History or the Logic of Infinity and are just thrashing about now with meaningless threats that I can't use science? Are you absurdly that strung on on atheist denial of logical progression you have to post lies? Of course I can use science anytime I want to to back up my beliefs. I just used logic on you and you can't deal with it, like atheists can't, being trapped inside a fundamentalist religious mindset that just MUST deny anything that contradicts the fundie beliefs. And don't kid yourself atheists don't have fundamentalist beliefs. Just check out the evangelical atheists proselytizing on religious forums, chasing after Christians primarily as atheism seems to be an anti-Christian-based secular religion.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:17:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You atheists make a really big mistake when you lump all Christians, all believers together. For example, if you think I am a Bible believing Pauline Christian who has to defend Bible beliefs, think again. My Christianity is rooted in Gnosis, a much different theology, and one I might add no science can topple because we don't use religious mythologies as real history but only as what they always were meant to be, metaphoric, allegoric educational stories to make moral points for good citizenship.

Go ahead, make my day. Try to defeat my Celestial Torah Christian beliefs with science. I challenge you to a duel to the death of atheist irrationality. See if you can save poor atheism from being ripped to shreds by theistic logic.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:43:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 11:17:30 PM, biomystic wrote:
You atheists make a really big mistake when you lump all Christians, all believers together. For example, if you think I am a Bible believing Pauline Christian who has to defend Bible beliefs, think again. My Christianity is rooted in Gnosis, a much different theology, and one I might add no science can topple because we don't use religious mythologies as real history but only as what they always were meant to be, metaphoric, allegoric educational stories to make moral points for good citizenship.

Go ahead, make my day. Try to defeat my Celestial Torah Christian beliefs with science. I challenge you to a duel to the death of atheist irrationality. See if you can save poor atheism from being ripped to shreds by theistic logic.

Excellent! But surely you can understand that my argument with the ID'ers doesn't include you and your beliefs. You're obviously not taken in with the young earth literal bible teaching either. You are the sort of Christian who has come to an understanding that the bible has to be interpreted metaphorically. And I congratulate you for that.

However, it has a downside and I have to fair to you and tell you what I believe it is. You are up to date and clever enough to understand the obvious pitfalls of believing literally in the bible and you know that sort of literal belief is too easily challenged. Therefore, you don't attempt to defend it but instead run from it.

I consider that to be a copout and taking the easy way out in order to hang onto your religion and remain credible in your own mind. I would suggest that your way is the first step to abandoning religion completely. You're just too smart for it all. Your way of reconciling all the falsehoods and lies is tenuous at best and won't carry you very far when it's put to the test.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 4:16:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 11:43:28 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/22/2014 11:17:30 PM, biomystic wrote:
You atheists make a really big mistake when you lump all Christians, all believers together. For example, if you think I am a Bible believing Pauline Christian who has to defend Bible beliefs, think again. My Christianity is rooted in Gnosis, a much different theology, and one I might add no science can topple because we don't use religious mythologies as real history but only as what they always were meant to be, metaphoric, allegoric educational stories to make moral points for good citizenship.

Go ahead, make my day. Try to defeat my Celestial Torah Christian beliefs with science. I challenge you to a duel to the death of atheist irrationality. See if you can save poor atheism from being ripped to shreds by theistic logic.

Excellent! But surely you can understand that my argument with the ID'ers doesn't include you and your beliefs. You're obviously not taken in with the young earth literal bible teaching either. You are the sort of Christian who has come to an understanding that the bible has to be interpreted metaphorically. And I congratulate you for that.

However, it has a downside and I have to fair to you and tell you what I believe it is. You are up to date and clever enough to understand the obvious pitfalls of believing literally in the bible and you know that sort of literal belief is too easily challenged. Therefore, you don't attempt to defend it but instead run from it.

I consider that to be a copout and taking the easy way out in order to hang onto your religion and remain credible in your own mind. I would suggest that your way is the first step to abandoning religion completely. You're just too smart for it all. Your way of reconciling all the falsehoods and lies is tenuous at best and won't carry you very far when it's put to the test.

What? You are busy building your "Christian" strawman, here, aren't you, making all sorts of assumptions about my Christian beliefs. Don't you see your own contradiction when you applaud my not taking the Bible literally but metaphorically then jump to a conclusion not warranted at all. No, I don't take the Bible literally but metaphorically, allegorically and as Signs of God spiritual movement through the generations.

I've been a believer in God and the Spirit of Christ for the past 35 years and I very much doubt I would ever go back to my lesser atheist consciousness I believe you to be stuck in, no atheist I've ever met having once had a true spiritual meeting with God and/or the Spirit of Christ ever going backwards back to atheism. It just doesn't happen. What does happen quite often is atheists coming directly from bad evangelical Christian experiences and reacting like reformed drunks condemning anything having to do with alcohol.

But back to my Christian beliefs. They aren't going anywhere. They are solid as can be and actually are part of a larger spiritual movement taking place in our times. The return of spiritual knowledge of the Celestial Torah where the earthly Torah was supposed to come from but didn't. Now we Jews and Christians can know why it was the Christ Sage King model for the Messiah that God wanted all along and not the David Warrior King model. The Celestial Torah reveals why this is.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 4:18:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I fail to see how evolution has ANY impact, let alone a fatal one, on Christianity. The Bible does not tell against evolution in any way. Neither does any sensible christian.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 11:07:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:18:59 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I fail to see how evolution has ANY impact, let alone a fatal one, on Christianity. The Bible does not tell against evolution in any way. Neither does any sensible christian.

Who cares? But the ID'ers make form stupid pseudo=scientific conclusions based on their lacking understanding of reality and then get themselves ridiculed and blown out of the water over it.

They apparently have to learn the hard way to not mess with science and stick to their faith based conclusions. The two obviously don't mix!

It's the equivalent of the JW church passing around the collection plate to raise enough money to build a spaceship to go to the moon!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 12:43:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 1:01:49 PM, monty1 wrote:
Let's get this on track with a definition of Intelligent Design from Wikipedia. If we can come to agreement that this definition is correct then we can proceed to blow ID completely out of the water.

"Intelligent design (ID)[1] is a form of creationism,[2][3] the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," presented by its proponents with the claim that this is a scientific theory.[4] It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea."

They have decided to challenge natural selection and that was their fatal mistake. For that reason it's become essential that mainstream Christianity needs to distance themselves from the particular "Intelligent Design" organization. If they can manage to do that then they could return to safe ground.

In my opinion, that doesn't mean that they have to abandon the notion of Intelligent Design completely, they only have to abandon the ID'ers science based arguments. And if they don't want to do that then we need to ask them to challenge science.

If you are going to have an argument that begins with the idea that ID'ers get science wrong, then you are going to have to start by getting the premise of ID correct enough to effectively rebut it's point. The act of Creation does not begin with evolution - it begins with the Big Bang. Ergo, if we believe there are elements of design and engineering involved ... your theory is missing about ten billion years of the process.

The contention that a single explosion, creates JUST the right amount of gravity to allow stars rather than black holes or simply diffuse energy (the most probable outcome), that these stars then go supernova and create JUST the right amounts of minerals and elements to support water and nutrients in JUST the right a biogenetic conditions is something of a odd string of coincidences.

It is only at that point where evolutionary processes take over. Although I would agree with you that simply ignoring natural selection would be folly, I cannot help but think back to my college days where the proof of evolution was left to us ... through artificial selection. Artificial selection remains a valid method of evolutionary and if it is? It open the door to other vessels of artificial selection.

In fact, as we reach ever greater levels of complexity, we find that intangible things begin to provide and evolutionary advantage. That would include religion itself.

http://www.npr.org...

As we induce an element of choice, of which religion is, and this choice itself conveys evolutionary advantage??? The concept of evolutionary processes hinging solely upon random genetic mutations and nothing else would seem callously dismissive of science would it not?

Its not the ID'ers disagree with science, its rather that we believe science will lead us to God at some point. Atheists, by in large, believe science will lead to ... something else.

What is key here is that faith, or the lack thereof, can induce biases that we should strive to be free of, if indeed we value science. Ergo, it makes little sense to begin a postulate with the emotional que that your opponent has collectively lose any sound view of science.

There will, of course, be those on both sides who have adopted unsound reasoning, but the limitations of individual humans on either side should not be what drives the discussion.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 12:47:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 10:34:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/21/2014 8:34:07 PM, andymcstab wrote:
ID was ruled against, not on grounds of validity but because it

"violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "

and the judge said

"the concept is creationism in disguise. "

Nothing to do with the evidence for ID.
Also, evolution is necessary for atheism, which makes evolution part of a fundamentalist belief system.

Religion
1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Theists posit God as that power, atheists posit evolution. It must be superhuman to have made everything from inanimate matter

1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship

Evolution is the faith of atheists, and they worship it as the creator

1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

Evolution is followed with great devotion by atheists.

Evolution then is just as much a part of religion as ID, and the judge should have thrown that out if he wants to throw out ID.

I have no interest in the fact that the ID side was ruled against for the reason of ID violating the constitutionality of church vs. state. All that is important is that the ID side was crushed. It was crushed because their attempt at arguing scientific evidence was weak, wrong, and misinformed. If you studied the Dover case at all you would know just that.

Everything they say from thereon in will be scrutinized carefully and if they presume to come up with scientific 'fact' that doesn't agree with mainstream science then they will be further humiliated and put down in short order.

They are left with arguing their side based on faith alone.

intelligent Design, as the post hoc of Creationism, was ruled against because it was a naked attempt at Semantics to teach Creationism in schools.

That is a far cry from the Apologetics linking science and religion in ever more intimate manners. We should not confuse literal Creationists with ID'ers or all shades. There are MANY people who find the case of science and God quite compelling, without ever uttering a single word that would be considering Creationist.

Undoubtedly, there were and are, but that has little to do with the actual case currently being put forward.