Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Disinformation.
Are you saying their assumptions are not flawed ?
Now YWC, please quit harassing Loki. He has already conceded that he has no problem with 43 "might haves" and "could haves" coming together miraculously to produce life.
I don't engage any faith.He is demonstrating it takes just as much faith to believe in his fairy tale as it does for us to believe in ours.
Arrogance is your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend; and I have nothing to fear from your imaginary superfriend.He is just too arrogant and too scared of God to admit it.
There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?
And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?
Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes."An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
Disinformation.Are you saying their assumptions are not flawed ?
Now YWC, please quit harassing Loki. He has already conceded that he has no problem with 43 "might haves" and "could haves" coming together miraculously to produce life.
I don't engage any faith.He is demonstrating it takes just as much faith to believe in his fairy tale as it does for us to believe in ours.
Arrogance is your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend; and I have nothing to fear from your imaginary superfriend.He is just too arrogant and too scared of God to admit it.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4"]"I don't feel frightened by not knowing things."--Richard Feynman[/ame]
Try this.Disinformation.Now YWC, please quit harassing Loki. He has already conceded that he has no problem with 43 "might haves" and "could haves" coming together miraculously to produce life.
I don't engage any faith.
Arrogance is your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend; and I have nothing to fear from your imaginary superfriend.He is just too arrogant and too scared of God to admit it.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4"]"I don't feel frightened by not knowing things."--Richard Feynman[/ame]
Your Darwinism isn't falsifiable either, so I am failing to see the contrast you are hopelessly failing at. Still waiting on that testable, agreed upon, definition of fitness. Let me know when you come up with something.
Other people believe aliens have done something similar. These notions are no less absurd than yours.The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?
40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them. I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?
I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
Refuted every time you post it.There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes."An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory.
It is no explanation at all for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.
Meyers never demonstrates this supermagical agent you carry on about. Therefore, there we are left with no reason to accept any appeals to supermagical agents.There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life oriiginated in the interactions non-living things?We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes."An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory. It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.
I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.
Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
Days or ages in Genesis 1
Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?
40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them. I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?
I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?
And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?
Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes."An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
If god made creationists then we're made in the image of a simpleton.
If god made creationists then we're made in the image of a simpleton.
What are your credentials to make such a claim ?
Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
Days or ages in Genesis 1
Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.
I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.
If god made creationists then we're made in the image of a simpleton.
What are your credentials to make such a claim ?
IDers trying to get intelligent design into a SCIENCE class, as opposed to getting it accepted in an ethics or philosophy class.
Any dumber than that, and you die. Evolution and natural selection have seen to that.
After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.
We must be some lucky planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
Just saying.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.
I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.
I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"
The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men.
Its quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. Its just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, its just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. Im forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.
We must be some lucky planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
Just saying.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not.
Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.
Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to disprove. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.
After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not.
Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.
Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to disprove. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.
We are lucky to get the precision in nature that is observed and required for lifes survival. Don't you feel lucky if it all just happened by chance ?
