All Religions are not Equal

[Seahawks]

That argument is not very good.

 

And your arguments involving a never-observed never-measured supernatural phenomenon are somehow better than readily observed and measurable phenomenon reinforced with solid theory? Why is, say, evolution amenable to religious attacks but not quantum theory? They're both 'theories', right? Shouldn't you be 'teaching the controversy' in physics classes? Or do you only go after perceived 'low hanging fruit'?

 

Solid theory??? lol Evolution has so many holes its worse than swiss cheese. It is a theory even if you want to proclaim its your gospel.

[foraker]

apparently, man was only allowed free will for a split second before it was taken away.

[foraker]

Solid theory??? lol Evolution has so many holes its worse than swiss cheese. It is a theory even if you want to proclaim its your gospel.

 

Which holes would those be? Please specify and show actual data supporting your arguments. Please show how this data contradicts all other data supporting evolution.

[sexual_chocolate]

oh no now you did it. it has been shown that reason does not work with the unreasonable.

[StevenSeagal]

Don't think it was Gods plan but he gave free will to all things he created.

 

And what of Satan? Another of God's creations that went haywire? Made before he even made humans?

 

Seagal have any kids??? I bet you want them to be the best they can be if you do. Do they always do what you want?? You created them didn't you??? Why can't you control them??? If you give something free will sometimes they don't do what you want.

 

 

I don't have kids, but that is irrelevant. If I create something and give them free will, why would I then expect them to immediately surrender that free will and do "what I want them to do"? That sounds like ownership.

I'm around nieces/nephews enough that I understand that you have to provide guidance and at times, control. But most of all you need to inspire kids to think proactively and to find out the answers through constant inquisitiveness, not through authoritarian dictatorship.

[Seahawks]

Solid theory??? lol Evolution has so many holes its worse than swiss cheese. It is a theory even if you want to proclaim its your gospel.

 

Which holes would those be? Please specify and show actual data supporting your arguments. Please show how this data contradicts all other data supporting evolution.

 

This could go on forever. There are a million thing.

 

How far is the moon moving away from the earth each year?? How far back do you have to go before nothing works??

 

No fossil records to support evolution.

 

On and on the list goes. Shall I grab all the articles?? It takes just as much faith to beleive evolution. And point is neither side can be proved. In debates by both sides neither side wins becuase neither side can be proved.

 

So you have chosen your faith, Go ahead and beleive in it. But it is based on theory not fact.

[StevenSeagal]

The first pharagraph I think at first it was God plan to be around more. He walked with Adam and eve. I think God can not look upon man and sin. So not to destroy it he isn't here like he was at first. Also it not God who sinned but man who choose go his own way. So it not Gods way.

 

Under this scenario, it sounds like God created man for his own self-aggrandizement, and now rejects him for utilizing a tool he himself gave man. What did he expect?

 

My impression, going back to humans, is that this is an invention of humans who wanted to control the behavior of other humans- this "free will" that God apparently gave us- and we certainly do have free will- is demonized by religion as separating us from God.

[Seahawks]

Don't think it was Gods plan but he gave free will to all things he created.

 

And what of Satan? Another of God's creations that went haywire? Made before he even made humans?

 

Seagal have any kids??? I bet you want them to be the best they can be if you do. Do they always do what you want?? You created them didn't you??? Why can't you control them??? If you give something free will sometimes they don't do what you want.

 

 

I don't have kids, but that is irrelevant. If I create something and give them free will, why would I then expect them to immediately surrender that free will and do "what I want them to do"? That sounds like ownership.

I'm around nieces/nephews enough that I understand that you have to provide guidance and at times, control. But most of all you need to inspire kids to think proactively and to find out the answers through constant inquisitiveness, not through authoritarian dictatorship.

 

authoritarian dictatorship that not God. He lets you choose freely. He just tells you there are repercutions. Just like if a kid decided to start shop lifting and gets caught.

[foraker]

You'd better get started then. We're waiting. You are engaging in what is known as 'science by assertion', i.e. "I say it is so, therefore it must be". If you're going to buck the conventional wisdom, you're going to have to do better than that. Maybe just give us three or four fully substantiated counter examples for evolution. That shouldn't be beyond your abilities, correct. Or are the pre-Socratics beyond your abilities as well?

[StevenSeagal]

Steven...question...What the fuck do you think the last 15 pages where? Ill answer it for you.....spray! Folks spraying about this and that. Spray.

Spraying about religion.

 

My grandmother (god rest her soul) taught all of us in our family some important things. One of them was no talking about religion or politics at the dinner table. Well, I know this is not the dinner table but close enough.

 

Well like I said, go play outside then.

Most children don't understand what the grown ups are talking about and so that's what little children do, they go play outside---

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

I'm still trying to figure out how an all-knowing god wouldn't have known that adam and eve would have chosen the path they did.

 

Seahawks, i'm sure there must be something in the bible that addresses this inconsistency?

[ericb]

I'm around nieces/nephews enough that I understand that you have to provide guidance and at times, control. But most of all you need to inspire kids to think proactively and to find out the answers through constant inquisitiveness, not through authoritarian dictatorship.

 

Interesting....So isn't a common argument against the existence of God that he does not interevene in Genocides, Natural Disasters and the like - Despite having the power (omnipotence) to do such? Perhaps even veiling his existence such that a person would need explore and question his existence - thereby stimulating inquisitiveness???? Sounds a lot like a good parent to me.

[foraker]

In debates by both sides neither side wins becuase neither side can be proved.

 

I can assume, then, that you are a moral relativist as well because, in this scheme, there is no 'right' and 'wrong'. There is no Heaven and Hell because God and Satan haven't finished arguing about what to do with Adam and Eve yet.

[JayB]

 

The fundamental problem with the argument from design is that it it extends to "the designer" as well as the designed. The being that you postulate must by definition be more complicated than any object or being than the being designed. Per your argument, it is far more improbable that the being that you postulate could exist without itself being designed by some other agent. If you insist that that - say - the bacterial flagellum could not come into existence without being designed by a higher intelligence, then this condition must also be true for the designer. To deny this is to deny the fundamental proposition that this particular argument is based upon.

 

Wow, Deep. Need to think about that. Are then saying that God is controlled by our limited reasoning?

 

At the very least, I am saying that arguments that contain clear logical flaws are not a very sound basis for either proving the existence of or inspiring belief in a supreme being. Or for attempting to construct a compelling challenge to evolution.

 

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

I'm still trying to figure out how an all-knowing god wouldn't have known that adam and eve would have chosen the path they did.

 

Seahawks, i'm sure there must be something in the bible that addresses this inconsistency?

 

does god know how you will respond to this question?

[minx]

Solid theory??? lol Evolution has so many holes its worse than swiss cheese. It is a theory even if you want to proclaim its your gospel.

 

Which holes would those be? Please specify and show actual data supporting your arguments. Please show how this data contradicts all other data supporting evolution.

 

This could go on forever. There are a million thing.

 

How far is the moon moving away from the earth each year?? How far back do you have to go before nothing works??

 

No fossil records to support evolution.

 

On and on the list goes. Shall I grab all the articles?? It takes just as much faith to beleive evolution. And point is neither side can be proved. In debates by both sides neither side wins becuase neither side can be proved.

 

So you have chosen your faith, Go ahead and beleive in it. But it is based on theory not fact.

 

yes, please grab the articles. from peer reviewed scientific journals if you don't mind.

[Seahawks]

You'd better get started then. We're waiting. You are engaging in what is known as 'science by assertion', i.e. "I say it is so, therefore it must be". If you're going to buck the conventional wisdom, you're going to have to do better than that. Maybe just give us three or four fully substantiated counter examples for evolution. That shouldn't be beyond your abilities, correct. Or are the pre-Socratics beyond your abilities as well?

 

Why? you will not beleive it, may not even read it.

 

According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation.

[StevenSeagal]

Don't think it was Gods plan but he gave free will to all things he created.

 

And what of Satan? Another of God's creations that went haywire? Made before he even made humans?

 

Seagal have any kids??? I bet you want them to be the best they can be if you do. Do they always do what you want?? You created them didn't you??? Why can't you control them??? If you give something free will sometimes they don't do what you want.

 

 

I don't have kids, but that is irrelevant. If I create something and give them free will, why would I then expect them to immediately surrender that free will and do "what I want them to do"? That sounds like ownership.

I'm around nieces/nephews enough that I understand that you have to provide guidance and at times, control. But most of all you need to inspire kids to think proactively and to find out the answers through constant inquisitiveness, not through authoritarian dictatorship.

 

authoritarian dictatorship that not God. He lets you choose freely. He just tells you there are repercutions. Just like if a kid decided to start shop lifting and gets caught.

 

 

Stealing a candy bar at the store: Visible repercussion

 

Burning in hell because you don't devote your entire being to a relationship with a God no one has ever seen and no one has spoken with and we know nothing about except what was written in a text written by superstitious men 2000 years ago= Not visible repercussion. Not even TANGIBLE.

 

The only ones who've told us we have repercussions are other humans. Unless you honestly believe that God spoke to them and that their word is the word of God.

 

[Seahawks]

You'd better get started then. We're waiting. You are engaging in what is known as 'science by assertion', i.e. "I say it is so, therefore it must be". If you're going to buck the conventional wisdom, you're going to have to do better than that. Maybe just give us three or four fully substantiated counter examples for evolution. That shouldn't be beyond your abilities, correct. Or are the pre-Socratics beyond your abilities as well?

 

Let us now consider theories on the origin of life. Here also the so-called evolutionary origin of life chemist is forced to utilize processes contrary to natural laws. In their experiments designed to produce even very simple molecules, they run into insuperable difficulties. For example, they must postulate some form of energy that would be available to convert simple molecules into more complex molecules. The only forms of energy that would have been available on their hypothetical primitive Earth would have been energy from the Sun, electrical discharges (lightning), radioactive decay, and heat. Most of the available energy would be that from the Sun. All raw forms of energy are destructive. The raw, unshielded ultraviolet light coming from the Sun is deadly, destroying rapidly the biological molecules required for life, such as amino acids, proteins, DNA, and RNA. UV light rapidly kills bacteria by disrupting molecules. All forms of life from bacteria to man are killed by UV light, and you know that if you are hit by lightning you would not become more complex—you would be severely injured or killed.

 

In all experiments employing these sources of raw energy, the rates of destruction vastly exceed the rates of formation. How then was Miller in his experiment1 able to obtain a small quantity of several amino acids and a few other products? He employed a trap. As tiny quantities of these substances were constantly being created and were immediately isolated in the trap, the gases he employed were circulating continuously through his raw energy, electrical discharges (simulating lightning). Without the trap, the products would have been destroyed by the electrical discharges at rates that vastly exceed the rates of formation, and no detectable quantities of the products would have formed. There could have been no traps available on the hypothetical primitive Earth. If these products were formed in the atmosphere they would be destroyed before they could reach the ocean. Furthermore, the ocean could not have acted as a trap since even there destructive processes would eliminate any surviving products.

 

In any case, a trap is fatal to the theory. The purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy source, but this brings the process to a complete halt. For amino acids to join together to make a protein, a large quantity of energy is required, but the very purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy. No energy, no further progress. Even as long ago as 1960 the physical chemist, D. E. Hull, taking into account the rates of destruction versus the rates of formation in these origin of life schemes, concluded that, "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist [origin of life chemist], who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates" (Nature 186:693). Coacervates are mere blobs of disorganized material. Please note that Hull states that these so-called origin of life schemes are contrary to proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, which are essentially the same as natural laws

 

[sexual_chocolate]

 

Then leave, I find it very facinating what people beleive and why. Even if it is nothing.

 

if you find it fascinating, then please respond to my questions regarding free will!

 

Don't want to go find it, what was it?

 

ok here it is, restated for you in a different way:

 

I'm still trying to figure out how an all-knowing god wouldn't have known that adam and eve would have chosen the path they did.

 

Seahawks, i'm sure there must be something in the bible that addresses this inconsistency?

 

[StevenSeagal]

I'm around nieces/nephews enough that I understand that you have to provide guidance and at times, control. But most of all you need to inspire kids to think proactively and to find out the answers through constant inquisitiveness, not through authoritarian dictatorship.

 

Interesting....So isn't a common argument against the existence of God that he does not interevene in Genocides, Natural Disasters and the like - Despite having the power (omnipotence) to do such? Perhaps even veiling his existence such that a person would need explore and question his existence - thereby stimulating inquisitiveness???? Sounds a lot like a good parent to me.

 

By the way, I am not arguing against the existence of God. That's not proveable. I don't know if God exists. I am however quite convinced that the assertions of organized religions are by and large based in fantasy and superstition, however.

And your point is correct- rather than telling kids what God is, I'd want to encourage my children (if I had any) to enquire into to find out for themselves what is true, what makes sense. But if I just hand them a Bible and tell them to memorize it because it's the truth and everything else is false and if they don't follow it they will burn in hell and be rejected by their creator, that's not stimulating any inquisitiveness, it's encouraging conformity and fear.

[Seahawks]

A. Random forces cannot account for life.

 

The design we see in living things is far too complex, too designed, too engineered to be the result of mere undirected, random forces. Even the simplest thing we could call "living" is vastly more complex than a super computer and super computers don't happen by chance. Every cell is composed of many constituent parts, each one marvelously designed and necessary for the whole. Without any one of its parts, the cell could not live. All of it is organized and energized by the magnificent DNA code, an encyclopedia of information which, even though modern scientists can't read it, it is read and obeyed by the cell. Surely some things need a Designer/Author.

 

[minx]

oh good, quoting articles from 1960 as though science has not moved on. lets try something more recent. and perhaps, lets delve into the realm of macrobiology rather quantum physics and physical chemistry. Not that they aren't relevant, just going for some diversity.

[Seahawks]

B. Evolution (i.e., macroevolution) doesn't happen in the present.

 

If it ever happened in the past it seems to have stopped. Maybe environmental conditions don't change much, or selective pressures are too little, but everyone knows that real macroevolution is not and cannot be observed today.

 

Mutations, random changes in the DNA information code, are observed, but never do these "birth defects" add any innovative and beneficial genes to the DNA. Instead, mutations are either repaired by the marvelous mechanisms elsewhere in the DNA, or are neutral, harmful, or fatal to the organisms.

 

Likewise, natural selection occurs all around us, but this only chooses from among the variety that already exists, it can't create anything new. Evolutionists may talk of actual selection as if it had a mind of its own and does the work of evolution on purpose, but it is inanimate and unthinking, impotent to bring about more than micro-evolutionary changes.

 

[sexual_chocolate]

Heh. Ask an honest question from a devout believer, and what do you get? you get evasion.

 

i suppose that is understandable, when someone is shown an obvious discrepancy in their belief system. it doesn't show much integrity though, or any commitment to the truth. oh well.