[_ Old Earth _] For the Christians... can you change?

[freeway]

"Snidey"]My statements are not based on faith, sorry. It doesn't take faith to believe in abiogenesis. It happened at some point, we just aren't 100% on how.

well Snidey you just admitted faith.. if you can not prove it 100% you rely upon faith... call it what ever you want it's still faith.

I know that every single thing science doesn't know for certain is somehow evidence to you that God exists, but it's not the case.

No it does not mean that just because science doesn't know the answer it means there has to be a God.. Science can't cure the common cold.. so what.. it trying "Go Team Science"

Instead of looking at the actual content of what I stated, you just highlighted aspects that aren't 100% known and pretended that the evidence thusly does not exist

No again.. just because you can not see the proof does not mean it not there but only that you rely upon faith that it will come about..

. What parts of the necessary steps in abiogenesis are unlikely to have actually occured, in your opinion, and why?

this one.. what steps, well there are no step life does not come from non life.. why? this has never been proven and I bet it never will......faith

I look forward to your answer (and how about one that uses actual punctuation?)

I coud also tunr off my speler cheker if tht wil hep.... :-D

"Where are the fossils?" Seriously? Why don't you find the fossil of a species in the geological record that entirely defies our current understanding of how life evolved and disprove this pesky theory once and for all?

this has been done in serveral other post aready don't really want to go through the whole.. lets look at the frog or monkey or clam...etc

On one hand you all champion faith as something great and noble

funny you should say that... because Jesus said faith is what we need in Him to obtain eternal life, faith is not a bad word for me... :wink:

, but when its weaknesses are pointed out, rather than defending faith itself, you accuse your opposition of having it as well.

Just how can you defend faith... faith is something unseen, yet believed, unheard yet knowing.

That's a fine strategy, but maybe you'd be better off figuring out why you ever prefer faith to evidence.

Well sure I'd like Jesus to come down and sit in the chair opposite of me and tell me all about creation..His love for me, how He died on the cross just to save my sorry (censored) but I have faith thats not going to happen.......................wait he did write me a letter .........the bible.. good enough.. 8-) 8-) 8-)

 

[freeway]

Snidey.. one question? what would it take for you to believe "faith" in Jesus?

I'm serious. this is one area I do not joke about....

freeway01

 

[Snidey]

well Snidey you just admitted faith.. if you can not prove it 100% you rely upon faith... call it what ever you want it's still faith.

No, I'm not calling it "whatever I want." The issue is not abstract labels you can throw onto any beliefs I hold. Faith is making absolute claims to knowledge without having absolute evidence. I do no such thing, and evolutionary biology requires no such leap.

No it does not mean that just because science doesn't know the answer it means there has to be a God.. Science can't cure the common cold.. so what.. it trying "Go Team Science"

?

No again.. just because you can not see the proof does not mean it not there but only that you rely upon faith that it will come about..

Faith that what will come about? I'm having a hard time understanding the points you're trying to make at all. Anyway, it is implicit in doubting evolution and abiogenesis that you are invoking God as an alternative. When we did not understand the rain, it was chalked up to gods. When we didn't understand gravity, it was chalked up to god. The amount of things we don't understand is decreasing, and the depth with which we understand biology, geology, chemistry, physics, and psychology is increasing. Christians will always look in the gaps. The problem is making gaps where they don't exist, like in the field of evolutionary biology (and geology, astronomy, etc). it requires no faith to believe in something if evidence actually exists. Your attempts to negate evidence (or, since I have not seen you debate the issues at all, your attempts to defer to others in negating evidence) are not sufficient to bring down a theory that has been tested for 150 years.

this one.. what steps, well there are no step life does not come from non life.. why? this has never been proven and I bet it never will......faith

What? Did you even read the basic outline of this process that I posted earlier? If you think it takes faith to believe in that process, tell me where the weakness lies, scientifically. Of course, I only ask rhetorically, as even a biology B student like myself can see that you don't understand nor do you seek to understand the science at hand.

this has been done in serveral other post aready don't really want to go through the whole.. lets look at the frog or monkey or clam...etc

There was a post demonstrating fossils that had been found clearly in a strata where they would never be in evolutionary predictions? Link.

funny you should say that... because Jesus said faith is what we need in Him to obtain eternal life, faith is not a bad word for me... :wink:

Then why do you consider it a point for your side when you call evolution faith-based? Why not praise us for our commitment? Or better yet, recognize the difference between deciphering truth based on evidence and based on whether or not it's located in a 2000 year old book that is outdated in just about every possible way?

Just how can you defend faith... faith is something unseen, yet believed, unheard yet knowing.

Um, what? First, you just did defend faith by saying you don't consider it a bad word. Second, I was referring to defending your tendency to believe things based off of faith, not faith as a metaphysical entity. That was pretty obvious. I am talking about utilizing faith to attain understanding, where it fails miserably when compared to, say, the scientific method.

Well sure I'd like Jesus to come down and sit in the chair opposite of me and tell me all about creation..His love for me, how He died on the cross just to save my sorry (censored) but I have faith thats not going to happen.......................wait he did write me a letter .........the bible.. good enough.. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Right, the fact that the Bible exists = Jesus MUST be the son of God, evolution CAN'T be correct, the Earth could NEVER be more than 10,000 years old, and gays should avoid marriage at all costs for the good of society as a whole. Your whole response here is a dodge to the question of why faith would ever be preferable to an evidence-based approach.

 

[Snidey]

Snidey.. one question? what would it take for you to believe "faith" in Jesus?

I'm serious. this is one area I do not joke about....

freeway01

He would have to reveal his presence to me, as well as his Godly abilities, in some sort of very clear way. For example, if he appeared, turned the water in front of me into wine, gave my friends and I some incredible wisdom, then flew out of the window into the sky after introducing me to my dead grandmother, I would be heavily inclined to believe in his being god.

 

[freeway]

Snidey.. one question? what would it take for you to believe "faith" in Jesus?

I'm serious. this is one area I do not joke about....

freeway01

He would have to reveal his presence to me, as well as his Godly abilities, in some sort of very clear way. For example, if he appeared, turned the water in front of me into wine, gave my friends and I some incredible wisdom, then flew out of the window into the sky after introducing me to my dead grandmother, I would be heavily inclined to believe in his being god.

Luke 16:27 So the rich man said, ‘Then I beg you, father – send Lazarus to my father’s house 16:28 (for I have five brothers) to warn them so that they don’t come into this place of torment.’ 16:29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they must respond to them.’ 16:30 Then the rich man said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 16:31 He replied to him, ‘If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

Snidey.. this is the parable that Jesus told of two men that had died, one went to paradise the other to hell... you say you would need some great miracle to make you change your mind, You have to see to believe... well I don't think you would even then... telling others is what Christians are charged to do by Jesus himself..

 

[Snidey]

I was actually pleasantly surprised when I saw that you had replied in this thread, because I thought you might in fact be replying to the more substantive points that I had made in previous posts that have gone unaddressed.

If I saw enough evidence, such as what I described, I would certainly be convinced. I am convinced of things by evidence, not dogma or faith.

 

[KenEOTE]

As a Christian I say I can change. In fact I change everyday. Yesterday I wore jeans and then today I wore khaki's. In fact in between I changed into PJ's. Does that answer your question?

 

[freeway]

Snidey said" I was actually pleasantly surprised when I saw that you had replied in this thread, because I thought you might in fact be replying to the more substantive points that I had made in previous posts that have gone unaddressed.

first I looked back over your post and I don't see what needs to be re-answered.. Point them out if you want.. I'm not trying to dodge any questions.. Again as far as changing form Christianity to what ever, some people have done that sure.. but to think you can just change at a drop of a hat, No a true Jesus believing Christian will not. Now if said Christian start living his life as if "I can do want I want because Jesus will forgive me" well those will start to change. Just because we are christians does not make us immune to things in this world.. Before becoming a Christian I've never thought seriously about life after death. because I believe in space aliens, I would tell christians that they are going to be surprised when their Jesus steps out of a spaceship.. and then just go from there... Since becoming a Christian, well things look a whole world different..

Snidey said" If I saw enough evidence, such as what I described, I would certainly be convinced. I am convinced of things by evidence, not dogma or faith.

the very same thing I used to say, word are very cheap and easy.. and of course I never expected you to admit openly here to any faith based ideas. But just felt moved to ask you.. 8-) 8-)

 

[Snidey]

As a Christian I say I can change. In fact I change everyday. Yesterday I wore jeans and then today I wore khaki's. In fact in between I changed into PJ's. Does that answer your question?

Is making everything into a terrible pun really that funny to you?

 

[Snidey]

Snidey said" I was actually pleasantly surprised when I saw that you had replied in this thread, because I thought you might in fact be replying to the more substantive points that I had made in previous posts that have gone unaddressed.

first I looked back over your post and I don't see what needs to be re-answered.. Point them out if you want.. I'm not trying to dodge any questions.. Again as far as changing form Christianity to what ever, some people have done that sure.. but to think you can just change at a drop of a hat, No a true Jesus believing Christian will not. Now if said Christian start living his life as if "I can do want I want because Jesus will forgive me" well those will start to change. Just because we are christians does not make us immune to things in this world.. Before becoming a Christian I've never thought seriously about life after death. because I believe in space aliens, I would tell christians that they are going to be surprised when their Jesus steps out of a spaceship.. and then just go from there... Since becoming a Christian, well things look a whole world different..

Snidey said" If I saw enough evidence, such as what I described, I would certainly be convinced. I am convinced of things by evidence, not dogma or faith.

the very same thing I used to say, word are very cheap and easy.. and of course I never expected you to admit openly here to any faith based ideas. But just felt moved to ask you.. 8-) 8-)

The points you're dodging would include:

- your claim that life cannot arise from non-life. I pointed out how this might be very possible in simple steps, and you ignored my points and reasserted that life cannot arise from non-life.

- I said that faith is making absolute claims without having absolute evidence. I don't have any beliefs that fall into this category, whereas you do. You continue to assert that I have faith, but only because you say so.

- you claimed that fossils had been found in clearly incorrect strata. What are you referring to?

 

[KenEOTE]

Is making everything into a terrible pun really that funny to you?

Yes it is. I read all these threads and both sides take themselves much too serious. As if there lives depended upon convincing the other person to agree with them. I think you should stop for a moment and just sit back and realize the absurdity of sitting at a computer writing back and forth for ours about the world and how things happened. The true joy of being a human is experiencing the world around us. On that note it’s a beautiful day so I am headed out the door.

 

[BobRyan]

well Snidey you just admitted faith.. if you can not prove it 100% you rely upon faith... call it what ever you want it's still faith.

No, I'm not calling it "whatever I want." The issue is not abstract labels you can throw onto any beliefs I hold. Faith is making absolute claims to knowledge without having absolute evidence. I do no such thing, and evolutionary biology requires no such leap.

Not according to Colin Patterson -- one of the most noted atheist darwinists in the field of paleontology.

(You SEE what happens when you DON't remind atheist darwinist religionists of this statement from PAtterson? They immediatly think they can get by with claiming that atheist darwinism IS NOT the "bad religion" we all see it to BE)

Here is what HE said regarding the faith-based junk-science hoax-infested relition we call today "atheist darwinism".

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christians will always look in the gaps. The problem is making gaps where they don't exist, like in the field of evolutionary biology (fallacy of equivocation removed here). it requires no faith to believe in something if evidence actually exists. Your attempts to negate evidence (or, since I have not seen you debate the issues at all, your attempts to defer to others in negating evidence) are not sufficient to bring down a theory that has been tested for 150 years.
..
What? Did you even read the basic outline of this process that I posted earlier? (gross equivocation left in)

funny you should say that... because Jesus said faith is what we need in Him to obtain eternal life, faith is not a bad word for me... :wink:

Then why do you consider it a point for your side when you call evolution faith-based? Why not praise us for our commitment? Or better yet, recognize the difference between deciphering truth based on evidence and based on whether or not it's located in a 2000 year old book that is outdated in just about every possible way?

As noted in my previous post -- this wild claim to "no faith" filled with gross equivocations between the junk-science hoax-infested religion we SEE as atheist darwinism - AND - ACTUAL science will be RIFE in each thread where the "inconvenient details" offerred by leading Atheist Darwinists THEMSELVES are not continually held up to REMIND the atheist religionists that they simply can not get by with those wild claims.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

I'm going to keep this conversation between myself and freeway, Bob, because debating you is A. entirely futile, as you don't acknowledge let alone concede points and B. all your arguments are exactly the same thing, repeated over and over. Why do you think I haven't seen all of your numerous posts quote-mining Patterson?

 

[BobRyan]

My arguments are far superior to anything yet "attempted" by darwinists on these threads.


1. I SHOW leading atheist darwinists lamenting the VERY problems in atheist darwinism -- that darwinists are so anxious to "deny" as even existing.

2. I SHOW it with examples that have proven to be irrefutable.

Darwinists claim that these silver-bullet examples keep coming up JUST when they had hoped that the readers would forget about them. -- AS IF posting that "hope" is some kind of "argument in FAVOR of darwinism"!!

The situation could not possibly be worse for the darwinist. No wonder they flee substantive discussion on the salient points raised.


--------------------------

Now let's indulge in a little darwinist nonsense imagination for a second --

suppose that John the Revelator said ANYTHING like what we have from leading atheist darwinist Paleontologist Colin Patterson!!

What if John said "you know for 20 years I have been DUPED into thinking of Christianity as some kind of REVEALED TRUTH"

What if John had said "I can not think of even ONE fact about Christ that should have established him as the Son of God - Savior of the world -- that I was supposed to have witnessed according to all the stories -- for which I can actually say I DID witness it".

Can you IMAGINE how often Darwinist athiests would be "quoting that to Christians"??

Can you IMAGINE that vaccuous Christian response of the form "yes you keep quoting that and we are tired of being reminded about it so we are not going to discuss that quote any more"??

What kind of "reader" would be convinced by such a lack of response????

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Now let's indulge in a little darwinist nonsense imagination for a second --

Say like this...

I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.
attributed to Kurt Wise in an email, 2003.

Or:

...various dating methods agree that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
John Woodmorappe, Studies in creationism and flood geology ICR Impact 238.

Or:

evolution currently provides the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, including humans
Buckna and Laidlaw, Should evolution be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?, ICR Impact 282.

Or:

it is absurd to think that Adam could name all the animals in part of a single day....science requires us to believe that the days of creation week were long ages instead of literal days.
Henry Morris, Adam and the animals, ICR Impact 212.

(Courtesy of Dr. Gallo, By Bayou University:
http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/main.html

Are these dishonestly edited? Of course. Just like Bob's Patterson scam. I suppose I could have patched them together in large print and red text and repeated them a thousand times to make the point.

But the real point is, although we could also play the quote-mining game, we don't have to. We have evidence, which we think is much more effective than poring over the statements of creationists, hoping to find a phrase here and there which can be edited to make it appear that creationists believe things they do not.

Can you IMAGINE how often Darwinist athiests would be "quoting that to Christians"??

There are all sorts of opportunities for that. But of course, as you know, there is a big difference between "creationist" and "Christian." There is a bit of overlap, but not much.

The point is, we have no need for dishonesty, because we have evidence. You have nothing but dishonestly altered "quotes." And that's why you use them. If you had something of subtance you would use it too.

 

[Deep Thought]

Barbarian, you have just passed Creationism 101 with flying colours :-D

 

[BobRyan]

obviously the salient point is that Patterson is NOT "just any old devotee to atheist darwinism" -- he is in THE CHAIR "of Moses" when it comes to atheist darwinism as the head of the department at British Museum of Natural History (Darwin's home base as it were).

Patterson HAS The fossils - as John HAD the eye witness account. IF ANYONE is supposed to KNOW what the fossils say -- it is Patterson!

My arguments are far superior to anything yet "attempted" by darwinists on these threads.


1. I SHOW leading atheist darwinists lamenting the VERY problems in atheist darwinism -- that darwinists are so anxious to "deny" as even existing.

2. I SHOW it with examples that have proven to be irrefutable.

Darwinists claim that these silver-bullet examples keep coming up JUST when they had hoped that the readers would forget about them. -- AS IF posting that "hope" is some kind of "argument in FAVOR of darwinism"!!

The situation could not possibly be worse for the darwinist. No wonder they flee substantive discussion on the salient points raised.


--------------------------

Now let's indulge in a little darwinist nonsense imagination for a second --

suppose that John the Revelator said ANYTHING like what we have from leading atheist darwinist Paleontologist Colin Patterson!!

What if John said "you know for 20 years I have been DUPED into thinking of Christianity as some kind of REVEALED TRUTH"

What if John had said "I can not think of even ONE fact about Christ that should have established him as the Son of God - Savior of the world -- that I was supposed to have witnessed according to all the stories -- for which I can actually say I DID witness it".

Can you IMAGINE how often Darwinist athiests would be "quoting that to Christians"??

Can you IMAGINE that vaccuous Christian response of the form "yes you keep quoting that and we are tired of being reminded about it so we are not going to discuss that quote any more"??

What kind of "reader" would be convinced by such a lack of response????

Bob

As always I look for "someone" to post substantively "in response" AS IF they were not simply glossing over the inconvenient details - or trying to use snippets to pretend that ICR ever endorsed evolutionism. (OH wait -- ICR complained that those half-sentence snippets were out of context -- so delete all)

Still waiting -- but I suppose it takes a while for them to shake off the effects of "antiknowledge" -- even if it is needed just for a moment.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian, you have just passed Creationism 101 with flying colours :-D

It is enjoyable to see atheists and Barbarian Christians in complete agreement.

What confuses me - is why Barbarian Christians keep whining about the fact that "I notice".

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Science is religion-neutral. That's why Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. can all agree on what it is. It's why it works so well. If there was some kind of religious bias in my science, I would know it was wrong.

So, tell me Bob, do you agree with those "quotes" I offered. They were all said by leading creationists. [satire]You see, even creationists don't believe in creationism.[/satire]

Does it give you some idea why quote-mining makes people believe creationists are dishonest?